Title: State v. Babson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Babson (2005-140); 180 Vt. 602; 908 A.2d 500

2006 VT 96

[Filed 31-Aug-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 96

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-140

                              MARCH TERM, 2006

  State of Vermont                   }           APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }           District Court of Vermont,
       v.                            }           Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit
                                     }  
  Barry Babson                       }
                                     }           DOCKET NO. 398/399-3-02 Bncr

                                                 Trial Judge: David Suntag

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant Barry Babson appeals from convictions of one count
  of sexual assault and one count of aggravated sexual assault.  Defendant
  argues that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court improperly
  admitted hearsay statements made by the victim to an examining physician
  and, in closing argument, the prosecutor highlighted the hearsay to
  indicate that the victim was telling the truth.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Defendant was charged with sexually assaulting his
  eleven-year-old stepdaughter, N.C., over a period of several months when
  the family of six was living in North Bennington.  N.C. gave extensive and
  detailed testimony about the assaults.  She reported that they most often
  took place in the mornings before school, in her older sister's bedroom,
  when her mother was sleeping and after her older sister had left for
  school.  N.C.'s older sister also testified that when she left for school
  in the mornings, defendant was awake and her mother was asleep in her own
  bedroom.

       ¶  3.  The victim's mother, Penny Babson, was a witness for the
  State.  She was married to defendant at the time of trial, was still in
  contact with him, and had no plans to dissolve the marriage.  She and
  defendant both testified that she was a very light sleeper, was usually
  awake in the mornings when the kids were getting ready for school, and that
  if she did go to sleep before they left for school, she would sometimes
  sleep on the living room couch.

       ¶  4.  Penny testified that after her daughter told her that
  defendant had touched her, she confronted defendant, but he denied it. 
  They argued, and she told him to leave.  She testified that he said, "Well,
  I did do it, is that what you want to hear or I did touch them, is that
  what you want to hear?"  She made him leave, secured an abuse prevention
  order, and wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, saying that
  she hoped defendant would get the help that he needed.  Defendant, who
  denied the allegations, testified consistent with Penny's account of their
  discussion.   Penny later denied telling anyone that defendant had
  confessed to her, but three additional witnesses for the State-two
  investigators and Penny's sister-testified that Penny had told them that
  defendant had confessed.  In addition, N.C. testified that she overheard
  her mother telling defendant that he could get help if he confessed, to
  which defendant replied that he would have to go to jail.

       ¶  5.  Dr. Nancy Scattergood, a family practitioner who had
  performed a physical examination of the victim, testified for the State. 
  Dr. Scattergood testified that there was no physical evidence indicating
  anal sex, but that the absence of any physical signs did not conclusively
  mean that anal sex had not occurred.  At the conclusion of Dr.
  Scattergood's testimony, the trial court solicited questions from the
  jurors.  One juror wrote, "What did [the victim] state when she was asked
  why she was there?"  The court addressed the question with counsel, heard
  no objection, and posed the question to the doctor.  Dr. Scattergood
  responded, "I can read it.  I have it in quotes.  I asked her why she's
  here.  She said, 'I'm here because stepdad molested her, started when . . .
  .' "  Defense counsel then objected "to the rest."  At the ensuing bench
  conference, defense counsel sought an instruction that the doctor isolate
  the victim's exact statements rather than paraphrase them, but did not
  otherwise object.  Dr. Scattergood was allowed to continue: "[the victim]
  said it started when they moved.  He puts his private in her butt,
  sometimes inside, it hurts sometimes.  There's no bleeding, never puts his
  private in her mouth.  He did ejaculate, and the quotation is, 'Liquid come
  out of his penis,' and the last time was about two weeks ago."

       ¶  6.  During closing argument, the prosecutor repeated some of the
  doctor's testimony about what the victim told her.  The jury returned
  verdicts of guilty on one count of sexual assault pursuant to 13 V.S.A. §
  3252(b)(2), and one count of aggravated sexual assault based on repeated
  nonconsensual acts as part of a common scheme or plan, pursuant to 13
  V.S.A. § 3253(a)(9).  

       ¶  7.  On appeal, defendant argues that he did not receive a fair
  trial because Dr. Scattergood's testimony was admitted in error and
  highlighted by the prosecutor in closing argument.  Because defendant did
  not preserve his objection at trial, we review only for plain error, and
  find none.  V.R.Cr.P. 52(b).

       ¶  8.  " 'Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where
  a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or
  where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the
  very heart of the defendant's constitutional rights.' "  State v. Oscarson,
  2004 VT 4, ¶ 27, 176 Vt. 176,