Title: Fraser v. Sleeper

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Fraser v. Sleeper (2005-554)

2007 VT 78

[Filed 24-Aug-2007]


       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.


                                 2007 VT 78

                                No. 2005-554


  Paul Fraser                                    Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Washington Superior Court


  Kerry Sleeper, Commissioner                    February Term, 2007
  of Public Safety


  Helen M. Toor, J.

  William A. Nelson, Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Harvey Golubock and Timothy B.
    Tomasi, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.   The Commissioner of Public Safety appeals a
  superior court summary judgment ruling that Paul Fraser is not required to
  register as a sex offender in Vermont.  Mr. Fraser was previously convicted
  of possessing child pornography in New York.  The essential issue is
  whether New York's child pornography possession law is equivalent in its
  elements to Vermont's law.  We conclude that it is not in this case and
  therefore affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  The undisputed facts are as follows.  Paul Fraser was a
  social worker living and working in New York when, in 1998, he took his
  computer to a repair shop.  An employee of the repair shop discovered child
  pornography on Fraser's computer and reported it to police.  Fraser was
  convicted in 1999 under New York law of two counts of possessing child
  pornography.  Fraser raised the issue of bona fide use of the images for
  research purposes before the New York trial court.  The court rejected bona
  fide use by a social worker as a defense and refused to instruct the jury
  on it.  An intermediate appellate court and the state high court both
  affirmed the determination that a bona fide use exception was not available
  to Fraser and upheld the convictions.  People v. Fraser, 704 N.Y.S.2d 426
  (App. Div. 2000), aff'd,