Title: In re Koveos

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Koveos (2003-488); 178 Vt. 485; 872 A.2d 321

2005 VT 28

[Filed 18-Feb-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 28

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-488

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2004

  In re Emmanuel Koveos	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
                       	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. S0160-00 CnC

                                                Trial Judge: Dennis R. Pearson

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

       ¶  1.  Petitioner Emmanuel Koveos appeals the superior court's order
  denying his petition for post-conviction relief.  He argues that (1) his
  constitutional right to confront his accusers was violated when his trial
  counsel deposed a witness without his knowledge, presence, or consent, and
  the witness's videotaped deposition provided inculpatory evidence that was
  admitted at trial in lieu of live testimony; (2) his trial counsel's
  performance fell below a standard of reasonable competency and affected the
  outcome of his trial; and (3) he was constructively denied counsel.  We
  find no error and thus affirm the superior court's denial of the petition.

       ¶  2.  Petitioner was charged with lewd or lascivious conduct with a
  child, in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2602, for molesting a twelve-year-old
  girl, A.M., while giving her and two younger girls a Greek lesson at the
  church where he was a priest.  Before trial, petitioner's trial counsel
  sought to depose the older of the other two girls, K.F., but the child's
  parents filed a motion for a protective order supported by an affidavit in
  which the child's father stated that K.F. had no personal first-hand
  knowledge of any crime that petitioner may have committed against A.M. on
  the day in question.  Eventually, the parties agreed that defense counsel
  could depose K.F. as long as petitioner was not present and a videotape of
  the deposition could be used at trial in lieu of live testimony.  As it
  turned out, during her deposition, K.F. provided testimony that was highly
  favorable to the prosecution.  She stated that she saw petitioner rub
  A.M.'s back and hold her hand before taking her to his office.  She also
  stated that A.M. appeared very nervous and on the verge of tears while the
  touching was taking place, and that both A.M. and her mother were very
  upset and crying in the car on the way home from the lesson.  The State
  commenced its prosecution of petitioner by playing a redacted form of the
  videotaped deposition for the jury.
   
       ¶  3.  Through K.F.'s deposition, petitioner's own statements made
  to police, and the testimony of A.M. and her mother, the State presented
  evidence at trial showing that petitioner rubbed A.M.'s back and held her
  hand in the presence of the other two girls before taking A.M. to his
  office, where he touched her breast, inner thigh, and crotch.  Defendant
  testified at trial that he never touched A.M. with the purpose of
  gratifying himself sexually.  The jury returned a guilty verdict, and this
  Court affirmed the conviction in State v. Koveos, 169 Vt. 62,