Title: State v. Church

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Church  (96-351); 167 Vt. 604; 708 A.2d 1341

[Filed 21-Jan-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-351

                             DECEMBER TERM, 1997

State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont,
                                }     Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit
Lynn Church                     }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 360-3-95FrCr

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant was charged with one count of sexual assault on a minor (13
  V.S.A. § 3252(b)(1)) and one count of lewd and lascivious contact with a
  minor (13 V.S.A. § 2602) for acts alleged to have occurred with his
  daughter.  He appeals from the jury's guilty verdict, and we affirm.

       The acts in question were alleged to have occurred with defendant's
  daughter S.C., when she was between twelve and fourteen years old.  Prior
  to trial, the court granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence of
  defendant's alleged sexual acts with another daughter, J.C.

       Defendant raises three issues on appeal.  Defendant argues first that
  the information was insufficient to charge the offense because it omitted
  an essential element of the offense -- the words "with the intent of
  arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions or sexual desires
  of such person or of such child."  However, the information was amended
  during trial in order to add the missing element, as allowed by V.R.Cr.P.
  7(d) "[i]f no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial
  rights of the defendant are not prejudiced."  The amendment in question did
  not result in an additional or different offense being charged.  Since
  defendant's brief does not acknowledge the amended information, defendant
  has not pointed to substantial rights that might have been prejudiced by
  the amendment.  Nor does the record suggest that any such rights were
  involved.  Defendant was aware of the nature of the charges and has never
  argued the contrary.

       Defendant next argues that the testimony of Carolyn Belleview should
  not have been admitted, since it did not qualify as a prior consistent
  statement under V.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B), both because the statement by the
  witness was not "shown to have been made prior to the time that the
  supposed motive to falsify arose," citing State v. Carter, 164 Vt. 545,
  549,