Title: State v. Quiroz

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Quiroz (99-263); 171 Vt. 509; 757 A.2d 464 

[Filed 23-May-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-263

                              APRIL TERM, 2000

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit
                                       }
Daniel E. Quiroz	               }	DOCKET NO. 727-7-96 Bncr	
                                                Trial judge:  David Suntag

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

       Defendant Daniel Quiroz was convicted by a jury of sexual assault on a
  minor.  He appeals,  claiming he was denied his right to confront the
  complaining witness when the court precluded him  from using a delinquency
  adjudication and specific instances of conduct to impeach her testimony  
  We affirm.

       Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter, who was
  fourteen at the time she  reported the abuse.  The case against defendant
  rested on the victim's testimony; defendant denied  the allegations and
  attacked the victim's credibility.  During the course of the trial,
  defendant  impeached the victim by: eliciting testimony that the victim had
  been sent to counseling by her  stepmother for lying; by eliciting further
  testimony about her reputation for untruthfulness from  her stepmother and
  a school official; and by inquiring into specific instances when the victim
  lied  about stealing money, being neglected, making telephone calls,
  stealing a pocketbook and stealing  a ring.  However, when defendant
  attempted to introduce evidence of her adjudication of  delinquency for
  uttering a forged instrument, the court disallowed it.  Further, the court
  refused to  allow defendant to inquire in more detail about the specific
  instances of conduct.  Defendant  argues the court erred in disallowing the
  introduction of the delinquency adjudication and more  detail about the
  specific instances of conduct because these rulings denied him his
  constitutional  right to confront the witness.  

       The victim had previously been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for
  stealing a pocketbook from a  teacher at school and forging and cashing
  checks that were in the pocketbook.  Rule 609(d) of the  Vermont Rules of
  Evidence provides that evidence of a juvenile adjudication is generally not 
  admissible to attack the credibility of a witness, unless "conviction of
  the offense would be  admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and
  the court is satisfied that admission in evidence 

 

  is necessary for fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence." 
  V.R.E. 609(d).  Thus, to  be admissible a juvenile adjudication, like an
  adult conviction, must involve untruthfulness or  falsification, and the
  probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect.  V.R.E. 609(a)(1). 
  In  addition, even if the evidence meets those criteria, the court must
  find the admission of the  juvenile conviction is "necessary" to a fair
  disposition of the case.

       The requirement that impeachment by a juvenile adjudication be allowed
  only where necessary is  intended to be interpreted consistently with Davis
  v. Alaska,