Court Opinion

ID: 9522088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:17:43.327424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:16.659670
License: Public Domain

Skoglund, J.,
¶ 45. concurring. I concur with the majority’s opinion in all respects except I would hold definitively that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the videotape of the relief-from-abuse (RFA) hearing. As the majority points out, the RFA petition was predicated on the same events that formed the basis for the State’s attempted murder charge, and the RFA hearing took place after defendant was arraigned and assigned counsel in the criminal case. Nevertheless, defendant participated in the RFA hearing without counsel, and the family division judge did not forewarn him that his testimony at that hearing could be used against him in the upcoming criminal trial. At the RFA hearing, the family division judge expressed unabashed incredulity in questioning defendant about his version of the events that led to the attempted murder charge. In my view, the danger of undue prejudice that necessarily results from allowing a jury to hear another judge expressing skepticism as to the defendant’s credibility overwhelms any potential probative value in having the jury hear such remarks. Given the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the State’s original proffer for allowing admission of the videotape was negated by the trial court’s limitation on what the jury could hear, the trial court should have denied the State’s request that the jury hear the RFA videotape. Accordingly, although I concur with the majority’s mandate and its conclusion that admission of the videotape was harmless, I write separately to express my belief that admission of the videotape was error.
¶ 46. In its pretrial motion in limine, the State sought admission of defendant’s statements during the RFA hearing “as admissions by party-opponent under V.R.E. 801(d)(2).” As the State explained on the first day of trial, it wanted the jury to hear, “as an admission by the defendant,” that defendant had agreed with the family division judge’s assessment of his version of events as “far-fetched.” Ironically, the trial court ultimately ruled that the jury would not be allowed to hear the judge’s “far-fetched” query or defendant’s response to that query, and yet nearly the entire remainder of the RFA videotape was played to the jury, over defense counsel’s objection, without any further proffer from the State. In objecting to admission of the videotape, defense counsel *18repeatedly reiterated that defendant’s statements were fine, but that the family division judge’s skeptical responses and queries concerning defendant’s version of events were unduly prejudicial to defendant.
¶ 47. There can be little doubt why defense counsel did not want the jury in defendant’s criminal trial to hear another judge express incredulity in response to the very same story defendant was to present to that jury. As the majority recognizes, “defendant’s statements in the RFA hearing were almost entirely consistent with his testimony below in this proceeding.” Ante, ¶ 28. In response to the same story, the jury heard the RFA judge skeptically ask defendant, “[S]o your good friend there suddenly turns on you and hits you?,” “And you’re saying, unprovoked,- he suddenly turns on you and hits you in the bedroom?,” “Without provocation?,” “And you just happened to have a gun in your shorts?,” and ‘Well, then if it’s totally neither of those most popular categories [drug or girlfriend related], what else could it be?”
¶ 48. As the majority states, this Court has forewarned that “a judge’s lightest word or intimation is received by a jury with great deference.” State v. Camley, 140 Vt. 483, 489, 438 A.2d 1131, 1134 (1981). Here, the judge’s incredulous queries far exceeded mere intimation as to defendant’s lack of credibility. Worse, once the trial court removed defendant’s affirmation of his version of events as “far-fetched,” the only purpose for admitting the RFA videotape was to allow the jury to hear the RFA judge’s expressions of disbelief upon hearing defendant’s version of what took place on the night in question. Notably, the videotape was admitted and played to the jury before defendant even testified; thus, this was not a situation where defendant’s prior statements were admitted for purposes of impeachment or rebuttal. Under such circumstances, the trial court plainly erred in allowing the jury to hear the RFA judge’s comments and queries expressing skepticism as to a defendant’s credibility on matters that formed the basis for the charges in his criminal trial.
¶49. I agree with the majority that defendant has faded to demonstrate plain error with respect to his constitutional claims. In any case, there are questions as to the application of the constitutional rights to counsel and against compelled self-incrimination in this civil RFA proceeding. But even assuming that these constitutional rights do not apply in this particular situation, *19the fact that defendant was participating without his assigned counsel from the criminal case and was not warned of the potential use of statements he might make concerning events that formed the basis of pending criminal charges should weigh heavily in not admitting the RFA videotape in the later criminal trial. See Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) (stating that Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination protects individuals from having to answer official questions put to them not only in criminal prosecutions, but “in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings”); cf. State v. Begins, 147 Vt. 295, 299-300, 514 A.2d 719, 723 (1986) (holding that probationer must be advised that his testimony at probation revocation hearing held before disposition of criminal charges arising from probation violation is inadmissible during later related criminal proceedings except for purposes of impeachment or rebuttal).
¶ 50. The admission at defendant’s trial of the RFA judge’s skeptical colloquy with defendant struck at the heart of defendant’s defense. Most assuredly, defendant’s version of events raised difficult questions regarding his defense, but it cannot be acceptable for the trial court to allow the prosecution to highlight those difficulties by presenting skeptical questions from a judge in another proceeding — particularly when the prior statements are not being admitted for purposes of impeachment or rebuttal. Apparently, that is exactly what the prosecution intended here, and the trial court abused its discretion by allowing it because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed any potential probative value. See V.R.E. 403 (allowing relevant evidence to be excluded where danger of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value).
¶ 51. In short, I write separately to emphasize that, under no circumstances, at least certainly not those present here, should a criminal trial court admit testimony in which another judge expresses skepticism regarding the defendant’s version of events that form the basis for the criminal charges.
¶ 52. I am authorized to state that Justice Dooley joins in this concurrence.