Title: State v. Hudson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_HUDSON.92-628; 163 Vt 316; 658 A.2d 531

[Filed 17-Feb-1995]

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. 92-628


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
Samuel L. Hudson
                                                   May Term, 1994


Matthew I. Katz, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee 

David H. Casier, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     JOHNSON, J.   Defendant was convicted by jury of first-degree murder
based on the shooting death of a man during an attempted robbery in which
defendant participated.  On appeal, he argues that several of the court's
instructions to the jury were erroneous, and that the court should have
granted his motion for a new trial based upon jury misconduct.  He also
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.  We
affirm. 

                                I.

     The following are the facts, viewed most favorably to the State and
excluding modifying evidence.  See State v. Elkins, 155 Vt. 9, 17, 580 A.2d 1200, 1204 (1990) (citing standard for reviewing denial of motion for
judgment of acquittal).  Early on the morning of June 4, 1991, William
Bessette was shot and killed outside the home of Ann Barbour in Essex
Junction, Vermont.  The previous afternoon, defendant, David Shelby, Timothy
Roarda, and Ronald McGee, who is defendant's brother-in-law, gathered at
defendant's home.  McGee felt that William Bessette, Ann Barbour's
"enforcer," posed a threat to McGee's brother, Leroy, because 

 

of a disagreement between Ann and Leroy over a drug debt.  Defendant armed
himself with a rifle, and the four men drove first to Leroy's place of work
to talk to him, and then to Barbour's house. 

     At some point during the drive, the group devised a plan to steal
cocaine from Barbour's house.  According to the plan, McGee would enter
Barbour's home while Shelby and defendant waited outside.  When McGee gave
the signal, Shelby and defendant would enter the house. Defendant and McGee
would hold the occupants of the home at gunpoint, while Shelby retrieved the
drugs.  Roarda would serve as lookout and driver of the getaway car. 

     The group arrived at Barbour's house as planned to steal the cocaine. 
McGee, armed with a concealed handgun, knocked at the door and entered the
residence.  Defendant, who was carrying his rifle, waited by the side of the
house, while Roarda remained near the car.  Inside the home, McGee
encountered Barbour, Bessette, and three other men.  Eventually, he went down
to the basement, where he used cocaine.  Shelby grew impatient with the delay
and knocked at the door.  After being scrutinized by the occupants of the
house, Shelby went downstairs and used cocaine.  At one point, McGee rejected
Shelby's suggestion that they abandon the robbery. 

     Shortly thereafter, McGee, Shelby, Bessette and another person left
Barbour's house and were met by defendant, who pointed his rifle at Bessette.
 Bessette grabbed the barrel of the gun and struggled with defendant.  McGee
then shot Bessette in the back of the head, killing him. While the others ran
off, McGee reentered the house and tried to get the two men remaining there
to go outside.  Apparently unaware that Bessette had been shot, they
declined.  A few minutes later, when defendant, Shelby, and Roarda picked
McGee up, McGee told them that he had returned to the house in an
unsuccessful attempt to get the cocaine.  McGee wanted to go back again but
Roarda refused to stop the car. 

                                II.

     Defendant challenges several of the court's jury instructions.  The
State argues that the 

 

defendant failed to preserve any of the claimed shortcomings in the
instructions because he did not make a succinct recitation of the specific
itemized objections following the instruction, as required by V.R.Cr.P. 30;
State v. Pelican, 160 Vt. 536, 538,