Title: State v. Robinson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Robinson  (95-556); 165 Vt 351; 683 A.2d 1005

[Opinion Filed 26-Jul-1996]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 95-556


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit

Todd M. Robinson                                  April Term, 1996


Alan W. Cook, J.


       John W. Vorder Bruegge, Windsor County Deputy State's Attorney, White
  River Junction, for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert Appel, Defender General and Judith A. Ianelli, Montpelier,
  Appellate Attorney, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



       MORSE, J.  Following denial of his motion to suppress, defendant
  entered into a conditional plea for possession of marijuana and a
  switchblade, reserving the right to appeal the denial.  The contraband had
  been found during a search incident to incarceration for summary criminal
  contempt.  Defendant argues that the court's order of summary contempt was
  an abuse of discretion, requiring suppression of the contraband.  He did
  not appeal the contempt order directly.  Because we decline to extend the
  applicability of the exclusionary rule to these circumstances, we affirm
  without reaching the issue of the legality of the contempt order.

       On March 16, 1995, defendant and his estranged wife, Stacey Robinson,
  and her attorney, met at family court to resolve custody and visitation
  issues relating to their minor child.  Defendant appeared pro se.

       During the proceedings, Stacey Robinson was asked whether defendant's
  temper caused her concern in regard to his visitation with their daughter.
  Before she could respond, defendant

 

  interrupted, declaring, "Might as well say yes, sweetie, because I'm not
  going to see you or her," and the following exchange ensued:


    Court: "You might as well keep your mouth shut, sir.  You're in a
    court of law. And if you say anything again without being asked to speak,
    you'll be held in contempt and you'll be placed in custody status.  Do you
    understand that?"

    Defendant: "Then, you can hold me in contempt, sir.  You can have
    whatever you want, as far as visitations."

  Defendant then stood up and, disregarding the court's order to remain
  seated, began to walk out of the courtroom.  The court officer attempted to
  restrain him by holding his arm.

    Defendant: "Let go of me you fucking bitch.  Let go of me.  I want my
    fucking arm. I can't deal with this."

       . . . .

    Court: " --no, we're going to stay here."

    Defendant: "Sir, let me tell you something.  Let go of me.  I haven't
    threatened you. I haven't done anything to you.  I need to take a walk."

  The court again ordered defendant to sit down, and a struggle followed as
  the court officer pushed defendant against the wall, then to the floor and,
  with the help of a second officer, handcuffed him.  During the scuffle,
  defendant referred to the court officer as a "goon."

       The proceedings were disrupted for about three minutes.  After
  defendant had been fully restrained, the court made findings on the record:

    The record will reflect that Mr. Robinson . . . has engaged in
    uncontrolled behaviors and resisted the efforts of the security officers to
    control his behaviors in the presence of the court.

       He's adjudged in willful contempt of the court's orders.  And
     consequence of his contemptuous behavior is disruptive of the orderly
     proceedings of this court.  He will be sentenced to serve 10 days in jail.
     It's a contempt -- a summary contempt committed in the presence of the
     court.  And consequence of these behaviors, a mittimus shall issue for the
     incarceration of Todd M. Robinson for a period of 10 days.  Summary
     contempt of court.


       Under the order, defendant was taken to a holding cell in the
  courthouse.  There he was searched, whereupon the switchblade and marijuana
  were found.

 

                                     I.

       Defendant claims that the judge's abuse of discretion requires
  suppression of the fruits of the search.  He is correct that a search
  incident to an illegal arrest requires suppression of the evidence
  obtained.  State v. Laflin, 160 Vt. 198, 201,