Title: State v. Machia

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 87-404


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Ephriam J. Machia                            Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

                                             September Term, 1989


Joseph J. Wolchik, J.

Howard E.Van Benthuysen, Franklin County State's Attorney, and Peggy Larson,
   Law Clerk (On the Brief), St. Albans, for plaintiff-appellee

Nicholas L. Hadden and Peter M. Miller (On the Brief) of Lynch and Hadden,
   St. Albans, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.

     GIBSON, J.   Defendant appeals his simple assault conviction following
trial by a jury of eleven persons.  The issue on appeal is whether
defendant effectively stipulated to a jury of eleven persons.  We conclude
that he did and therefore affirm.
     In May of 1986, defendant was arraigned in Franklin District Court on
charges of simple assault as the result of an incident in which he struck a
police officer.  Jury selection took place in May of 1987.  Thirteen jurors
were seated, providing just one alternate.  Realizing that this might mean
that defendant would eventually be tried by fewer than twelve jurors, the
court asked both counsel, during an on-the-record bench conference out of
the hearing of defendant, whether they would agree to proceed with eleven
jurors in the event that more than one juror was not able to continue.  Both
counsel agreed, with defense counsel emphasizing that less than eleven
jurors would be unacceptable in any event.
     On the first day of trial, the judge stated in open court on the
record in the presence of defendant that two jurors were not present and
that counsel had agreed to continue with eleven jurors.  Specifically, the
court announced:
          [W]e'll note for the record that it's our understanding
          [that two jurors] are not here.  [One] is quite ill this
          morning, cannot get out of bed.  [The other] is not
          here, and his phone is disconnected.

          . . . .

            All right.  And the record will reflect that counsel
          have agreed to go with eleven jurors in the case, and
          that is what we do have at this particular time.
There is no record of any discussion between either the court and defendant
or defense counsel and defendant concerning defendant's understanding of his
rights or desires relating to the number of jurors.  Defendant did not
object to the decision to go with eleven jurors at the time the decision was
announced, or at any time during the trial, or in his motion for a new trial
following conviction by the eleven-member jury.  Defendant first raises the
issue on appeal.
     Defendant argues that the Vermont Constitution guarantees him a right
to a jury comprised of twelve members, and that neither his counsel's on-
the-record oral stipulation to an eleven-member jury, nor his silence in the
face of the court's announcement, effectively waived his constitutional
right to be tried by a jury of twelve.  We disagree.
     This Court has never considered the constitutional import of reducing
the number of jurors from twelve to eleven.  Chapter 1, Article 10 of the
Vermont Constitution entitles every person charged with a criminal offense
to "a speedy public trial by an impartial jury," provided that the accused
"may in open court or by a writing signed by him and filed with the court,
waive his right to a jury trial and submit the issue of his guilt to the
determination and judgment of the court without a jury."  Article 10 does
not specify the number of jurors required to constitute a jury.  On several
occasions, this Court, while passing on related issues, has noted that
defendants have a constitutional right to be tried by a common-law jury of
twelve; however, none of these cases directly concerned the constitutional
significance of reducing the jury from twelve to eleven members.  See State
v. Couture, 146 Vt. 268, 272,