Title: State v. Wheel

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                   No. 88-385


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit

Jane L. Wheel                                September Term, 1990



Francis B. McCaffrey, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
  General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Richard E. Davis and T. Christopher Greene of Richard E. Davis Associates,
  Inc., Barre, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Dooley, J., and Barney, C.J. (Ret.), Meaker, Supr. J., and Mahady
          and Pineles, D.JJ., Specially Assigned


     DOOLEY, J.   Defendant Jane Wheel, a former assistant judge in
Chittenden Superior Court, appeals a jury conviction on three counts of
false swearing, in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2904. (FN1) We affirm.
     Defendant was a Chittenden County assistant judge from 1975 to 1987.
On November 14, 1985, the attorney general began an investigation into
whether defendant had improperly submitted false pay vouchers for days on
which she did not work.  Acting on information that defendant had not sat on
a single case from March 5, 1985 to April 12, 1985, state investigator
Randall Moran reviewed case files at Chittenden Superior Court for all cases
heard during that period.  Moran concluded from his review that defendant
had neither participated in any hearings nor signed any orders in that
period.  During his review, Moran uncovered several case files where it
appeared that defendant's name had been added in her handwriting to the
docket entries on the file jacket.  These entries were for proceedings
outside the target period.  As a result of this discovery and upon further
investigation, the State concluded that defendant may have altered the case
files in order to make it appear that she had attended court proceedings
when in fact she had not.
     Three inquests, one in January of 1986 and the other two in May of
1986, were held to assist the investigation of the alleged misconduct of
defendant and the other Chittenden County assistant judge.  Defendant
testified at the inquests held on May 6 and May 13.  As a result of
statements she made at the May 6 inquest, she was charged with several
counts of false swearing.  Prior to trial, the court denied defendant's
motions to suppress the statements and dismiss the case.  Following the
trial, held from January 28 to February 23, 1988, the jury found defendant
guilty of three counts of false swearing.
     On appeal, defendant seeks acquittal or a new trial because:  (1) the
Vermont inquest procedure is unconstitutional; (2) her constitutional rights
were violated during the inquest proceedings; (3) the attorney general had
no authority to conduct an inquest; (4) the jury panel expressed prejudice;
(5) individual jurors expressed prejudice; (6) the court allowed the State
to present evidence of defendant's prior bad acts; (7) the court admitted
impeached testimony and hearsay; (8) the State's concession that defendant
was surprised by the questions posed at the inquest negated the specific
intent element of the perjury charge; (9) the prosecution was guilty of
prejudicial misconduct; (10) the court failed to charge the two-witness
rule; (11) the evidence does not support the verdict; and (12) the
cumulative effect of errors mandates reversal.
                                    I.
     Defendant first argues that the charges against her should have been
dismissed because the Vermont inquest procedure violates the separation of
powers doctrine, Vt. Const. ch. II, art. 5, as well as her right to the
presence of legal counsel.  U.S. Const. amend. V and XIV; Vt. Const. ch. I,
art. 10.  Defendant made the same arguments to this Court in a motion to
bring an interlocutory appeal under V.R.A.P. 5(b).  We denied the motion,
stating that "even if there was error in the conduct of the inquest, that
error will not offer a defense to the false swearing charge or a victory
through the suppression motion."  State v. Wheel, 148 Vt. 439, 441,