Title: State v. Powers

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_POWERS.92-553; 163 Vt 98; 655 A.2d 712

[Filed 16-Dec-1994]


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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                            No. 92-553


State of Vermont                          Supreme Court

                                          On Appeal from
     v.                                    District Court of Vermont,
                                          Unit 2, Chittenden Circuit

Norman D. Powers                          September Term, 1994



Linda Levitt, J.

Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
 Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee 

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Defender,
 Montpelier, for defendant-appellant 



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


  GIBSON, J.     Defendant was convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with
a child, 13 V.S.A.  2602.  On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court
erred by admitting into evidence a letter defendant wrote after he was
charged; (2) the State denied him fair notice of the charges as guaranteed by
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution; and (3) the State
impermissibly commented on his failure to testify, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, Chapter I, Article 10 of the
Vermont Constitution, and 13 V.S.A.  6601.  We affirm. 

 

  Defendant, a Milton resident, owned a camp in St. Albans next door to the
home of his victim.  The victim, who was eleven years old at the time of the
alleged incidents, periodically visited defendant's St. Albans camp.  On one
occasion in March 1988, the victim accompanied defendant to his Milton home
and then to the Burlington YMCA to swim.  At his home in Milton, prior to
leaving for the YMCA, defendant asked the victim to try on several bathing
suits.  As defendant tucked the bathing suit string inside the suit he rubbed
the victim's penis. Defendant had the victim try on two additional suits and
repeated the fondling.  Defendant and the victim then went swimming at the
YMCA where the victim alleged that defendant again fondled his penis.  After
swimming, defendant and the victim showered in the locker room adjacent to
the pool.  While in the shower, defendant rubbed the victim's buttocks. 

  The State tried defendant on five counts of lewd and lascivious conduct. 
Defendant was convicted of four counts, three for fondling the victim's penis
while the victim tried on bathing suits ("the Milton counts") and one for
rubbing the victim's buttocks in the shower. 

                                        I.

  Defendant argues the trial court committed reversible error by allowing
into evidence, over his objection, a letter he wrote to the Department of
Social and Rehabilitation Services in which he stated that he had AIDS and
recommended that the victim be tested, implying that he and the victim had
engaged in sexual activity.  Trial courts have wide latitude in determining
whether evidence is relevant and admissible, and we will reverse only if the
court withheld or exercised its discretion on clearly untenable or
unreasonable grounds.  State v. McElreavy, 157 Vt. 18, 23, 595 A.2d 1332,
1335 (1991). 

 

  In moving to have the court exclude the letter, defendant argued that he
did not have AIDS, that he was not charged with conduct that could transmit
the disease, that the letter was prejudicial, and that he wrote the letter
solely to retaliate against the victim for making false accusations.(FN1)
The court found defendant's letter to be probative of a consciousness of
guilt and admitted it as an admission. V.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A); see State v.
Bernier, 157 Vt. 265, 268, 597 A.2d 789, 791 (1991) (admissions include any
relevant statement made by and offered against party opponent). 

  Defendant claims that the letter is not probative of fondling, and
therefore is irrelevant and inadmissible.  Defendant's letter suggested,
however, that he had had lewd contact with the victim and believed his
conduct could have infected the victim with the AIDS virus.  Although
defendant lied about having AIDS, his admission of contact with the victim
remained probative of defendant's improper behavior and that he had engaged
in lewd and lascivious behavior with the victim.  The trial court properly
left the jury to weigh the letter in light of the other evidence.  In short,
it was well within the court's discretion to conclude that defendant's letter
"advance[d] the inquiry," State v. Raymond, 148 Vt. 617, 622,