Title: State v. Parizo

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_PARIZO.91-264; 163 Vt 103; 655 A.2d 716

[Filed 23-Dec-1994]

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. 91-264


State of Vermont                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.                                          District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Charles D. Parizo                                March Term, 1994


Edward J. Cashman, J.


Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
 Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee 

Charles S. Martin and James Teixteira, Law clerk (On the Brief), of Martin &
 Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant 

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

     GIBSON, J.     Defendant Charles Parizo challenges his conviction for
attempted murder, alleging that he had a constitutional right to counsel at a
preindictment lineup; that the Vermont public defender statute required the
State to provide him with counsel at the lineup; that the nontestimonial
identification order requiring his presence at the lineup did not conform to
law; and that the court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the
jury on a lesser-

 

included charge of aggravated assault.(FN1) We affirm. 

     On October 8, 1986, a parking garage attendant in Burlington was shot by
a man he and others were pursuing following a purse-snatching incident. On
September 29, 1989, defendant was served with a nontestimonial identification
order to appear for a lineup and voice identification in connection with the
shooting.  See V.R.Cr.P. 41.1 (setting forth procedures for obtaining such
order).  Defendant was incarcerated on an unrelated charge at the time.  He
attempted to secure an attorney to represent him at the lineup, but was
unable to do so.  Although the police routinely allow attorneys to be present
at such lineups, defendant did not repeat his request for counsel at the time
of his appearance, and none was present on his behalf.  Three witnesses
identified defendant, who was then charged with attempted murder.  Defendant
moved to suppress testimony obtained as a result of the lineup, but the court
denied the motion.  Subsequently, defendant was convicted by a jury, and this
appeal followed. 

      Defendant contends that Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont
Constitution entitled him to counsel at the preindictment lineup.  That
provision states, in relevant part, "[t]hat in all prosecutions for criminal
offenses, a person hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel."  Vt.
Const. ch. I, art. 10.  In denying defendant's motion to suppress, the trial
court stated, "Like its federal counterpart, the Vermont Constitution's right
to counsel is premised on there being a `criminal prosecution.'"  We agree
that a preindictment lineup is not the equivalent of a criminal prosecution
and does not trigger a right to counsel under the Vermont Constitution. 

 

     At the time of the lineup, defendant had not been arrested for or
charged with any offense connected with the crime that was being
investigated. Reasonable grounds supporting a nontestimonial identification
order need not amount to the probable cause necessary to justify an arrest. 
V.R.Cr.P. 41.1(c)(2).  Under the federal constitution, the right to counsel
only attaches at or after the time adversary judicial proceedings have been
initiated -- whether by way of formal charges, preliminary hearing,
indictment, information or arraignment.  See Kirby v. Illinois,