Title: State v. Savva
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: Vermont
Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 1991

State v. Savva Annotate this Case 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, 523 A.2d 1232 , 1235 (1987) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 304 (1932)). The same act may constitute two separate crimes, and if one is not the lesser-included offense of the second, prosecution may be had for each offense. Id. at 617, 523 A.2d at 1235. But merely because the same defendant commits two separate acts, one of which has all the elements of a lesser-included offense of the other, does not mean that it can be charged as a lesser-included offense. The proceedings below focused on the drugs found in the hatchback. Under defendant's last-minute theory, possession of marijuana found in the passenger compartment was a separate crime, a crime that was never charged and which the trial court improperly instructed as a lesser-included offense. The State cannot now prosecute defendant for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, see 13 V.S.A. { 4501(d) (statute of limitations for misdemeanors is three years), so remanding this case to the trial court would serve no purpose. The Court's decision and its original entry of reversed remain unchanged. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dissenting ALLEN, C.J., dissenting. I dissent because I conclude that misdemeanor possession of marijuana in this case is a lesser included offense of felony possession, not a separate offense. A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction "if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find him guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him on the greater." Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 , 209, 93 S. Ct. 1993, 1995 (1973). Defendant's theory, that he knew nothing of the drugs found in the rear of the car, raised a question of fact for the jury to resolve. The jury could rationally have believed defendant's theory and found him guilty of misdemeanor possession while acquitting him of felony possession. I therefore cannot agree with the majority's unsupported assertion that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the lesser included offense. The majority concludes that defendant's possession of the smaller amount of marijuana constituted a separate and distinct offense because separate evidence could have supported separate charges. However, this reasoning misapplies the test for determining a lesser included offense. If "there is any reasonable theory from the evidence which would support [defendant's] position," then a trial court must instruct the jury on the lesser included offense. Ex Parte Kerr, 474 So. 2d 145 (Ala. 1985) (it is reversible error not to instruct a jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession when defendant denies knowledge of the evidence supporting only the greater offense). The State and defendant argue that the cause should be remanded and I would grant the request. I am authorized to say that Justice Dooley joins with me in this dissent. BY THE COURT: Dissenting: _______________________________________ Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice _________________________________ Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice _______________________________________ James L. Morse, Associate Justice _________________________________ John A. Dooley, Associate Justice _______________________________________ Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice [ ] Publish [ ] Do Not Publish