Title: State v. Savva

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 90-035

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1991


 State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                   }          Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
                                   }
 Phillip G. Savva                  }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. 2032-11-85WmCr


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Defendant's conviction for felony possession of marijuana was reversed
 because the drugs used as evidence (several pounds of marijuana and hash
 tar) were found during a warrantless search of packages in the hatchback of
 his vehicle and should have been suppressed.  The State's motion to reargue
 asks this Court to remand for a new trial on the lesser-included offense of
 misdemeanor possession of marijuana, based on the discovery of small amounts
 of marijuana found in the passenger area of defendant's vehicle before the
 search of the hatchback.

      Defendant was originally charged with one count of possession of
 marijuana in an amount two ounces or greater, 18 V.S.A. { 4224(F)(1)(B), and
 one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, 18 V.S.A. {
 4224(e).  The second charge was dropped, and the trial proceeded on the
 first charge.  At trial, the State introduced evidence of marijuana found in
 the hatchback.  It also introduced a paper bag found in the door
 compartment, which contained .1 gram (about a thimbleful) of marijuana and
 entered testimony concerning, but no physical evidence of, roaches found in
 the vehicle's ashtray.

      The State never charged defendant with simple possession of marijuana
 in any amount, 18 V.S.A. { 4224(a), nor did it argue for conviction on that
 crime.  At defendant's request, the trial court instructed the jury that it
 could convict defendant on misdemeanor possession, based on his theory that
 the jury might believe that he knew nothing of the drugs in the hatchback
 but still convict him for possession of the marijuana in the passenger
 compartment.

      We need not decide whether the State may retry a defendant on a lesser-
 included offense after reversal of a conviction for a greater offense
 because in this case misdemeanor possession of marijuana was not a lesser-
 included offense.  Rather, misdemeanor possession of the small stash in the
 passenger compartment was a separate and distinct offense from felony
 possession of the much larger amount found in the hatchback.  See State v.
 Gooden, 133 N.H. 674, 679, 582 A.2d 607, 610 (1990) (separate and distinct
 evidence supported one conviction for possession of cocaine and one con-
 viction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, even though the two
 offenses arose out of the same transaction and evidence of both offenses was
 found in the same location).

      "An offense is a lesser-included offense of another if it is composed
 of some, but not all, elements of the greater offense and does not have any
 element not included in the greater offense."  State v. Forbes, 147 Vt. 612,
 616-17,