Title: In re Ross

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. 90-141


 In re Jamie L. Ross, Sr.                     Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Chittenden Superior Court

                                              September Term, 1991



 Francis B. McCaffrey, J.

 E. M. Allen, Defender General, and Jeffrey Dworkin, Prisoners' Rights
    Office, Montpelier, for petitioner-appellee

 Edward D. Sutton, Chittenden County Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for
    respondent-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      Gibson, J.  The State appeals a superior court order granting
 petitioner Jamie Ross post-conviction relief in the form of a new trial.
 The court found petitioner had been denied effective assistance of counsel
 during his sexual assault trial because his counsel failed to object to
 expert testimony concerning the credibility of the child victim.  We affirm.
                                     I.
      In 1985, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to eight-to-fifteen
 years in prison after a two-day trial.  The State introduced evidence to
 show that petitioner had sexually assaulted the victim, his niece, in her
 parents' home when she was seven, two years earlier.  The defense denied
 any assault and argued that the victim had been assaulted repeatedly by her
 father. (FN1) The State called as witnesses the victim, her younger brother, 
 two foster parents who cared for her after she had been removed from her
 parents' home, and a psychologist with experience in child sexual abuse
 issues, Dr. Pamela Langelier.
      In a pretrial motion, petitioner's counsel sought to prevent the State
 from introducing expert testimony on the credibility of the victim.  Seven
 months before trial, a judge other than the trial judge denied the motion on
 the basis that expert testimony would aid the jury because the credibility
 of the victim was at issue.  Nonetheless, at a conference in chambers
 immediately prior to trial, the trial judge asked the State whether Dr.
 Langelier would testify "on the ultimate issue of credibility."  The State
 responded, "No, she's not. . . .  The State in no way is going to solicit
 testimony on the credibility issue.  We understand how bad that is."
      Dr. Langelier, however, proved to be an eager witness.  During direct
 examination, she testified that part of her job was to "address the question
 whether or not children are telling the truth."  In her opinion, she
 continued, children the victim's age generally do not fantasize about
 sexual contact with adults, and they do not "go around accusing their
 parents or other people of doing something to them."  Concerning
 petitioner's alleged assault, Dr. Langelier concluded that the victim
 "remembered it clearly and it looks like it was twice if not more."
      Petitioner's counsel did not object, thus failing to preserve the
 issues relating to Dr. Langelier's testimony for review on appeal.  As a
 result, defendant could argue on appeal only that the testimony had been
 improperly admitted under the stringent plain-error standard.  State v.
 Ross, 152 Vt. 462, 468, 568 A.2d 335, 339 (1989); State v. Senecal, 145 Vt.
 554, 557-58,