Title: State v. Goodnow

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_GOODNOW.91-233; 162 Vt. 527; 649 A.2d 752

[Opinion Filed May 27, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied September 6, 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. 91-233


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 Peter E. Goodnow                             March Term, 1993



 Edward J. Cashman, J.

 Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
   Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney,
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.   Defendant appeals his convictions of sexual assault in
 violation of 13 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(1)(B) and lewd and lascivious conduct in
 violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2601.  Defendant claims two errors: (1) that the
 trial court improperly excluded evidence of a prior false accusation of
 sexual misconduct by the victim, and (2) that the court impermissibly
 excluded the defense witnesses' opinions of the complainant's character for
 untruthfulness.  We affirm the convictions.

 

      In light of the issues raised by defendant, it is not necessary to
 review the facts that could have been found by the jury.  It is sufficient
 for purposes of this appeal to note that the victim testified that defend-
 ant, an acquaintance, sexually assaulted her and committed lewd and
 lascivious conduct in her home on June 4, 1988.  Defendant testified on his
 own behalf.  He acknowledged that the acts occurred, but contended that they
 were consensual and that the victim's claims of assault were false.  To
 support his defense, defendant attempted to introduce testimonial evidence
 of a past false accusation of sexual harassment by the victim and of the
 victim's character for untruthfulness.  The trial court excluded the
 testimony regarding the prior allegedly false accusation of sexual
 harassment and limited testimony regarding the victim's character for
 untruthfulness to reputation evidence.
                                      I.
      Vermont's Rape Shield Statute generally bars admission of "[e]vidence
 of prior sexual conduct" of a sexual assault complainant.  13 V.S.A. {3255(a).
 The prohibition is based on a legislative determination that such evidence is
 worthless and legally irrelevant.  State v. Patnaude, 140 Vt. 361, 373, 374,