State v. Bryan L. Perrault
173 A.3d 335
Vt.2017Background
- Defendant Perrault was convicted by a jury of one count of possession of marijuana and two counts of possessing a depressant or stimulant (18 V.S.A. §§ 4230, 4234). Post-trial he learned a juror had a prior federal felony conviction and had served part of post‑release supervision in the District of Vermont.
- Perrault moved (post-trial) to voir dire and later for a new trial alleging the juror failed to disclose the felony on the juror questionnaire and was statutorily disqualified under 4 V.S.A. § 962(a)(5) (disqualifying persons who "has not served a term of imprisonment in this state after conviction of a felony").
- The trial court conducted a limited post-trial voir dire: the juror admitted the Nevada federal conviction and Vermont-supervised release but said the conviction did not affect her impartiality. The court denied a new trial as untimely under V.R.Cr.P. 33 and found § 962(a)(5) inapplicable because the juror had not been imprisoned in Vermont.
- Perrault also moved for acquittal under V.R.Cr.P. 29 claiming insufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed depressant/stimulant drugs; trial evidence included pills (diazepam and methylphenidate) found in a prescription bottle in his backpack and circumstantial indicators of knowledge and dominion.
- The trial court denied the Rule 29 motions; on appeal the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed both denials, holding the juror was not statutorily disqualified, that Perrault failed to show actual juror bias or dishonest questionnaire answers, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the § 4234 convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Perrault) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-trial discovery of a juror's prior federal felony that included supervised release in Vermont required a new trial under 4 V.S.A. § 962(a)(5). | § 962(a)(5) does not apply because the juror was not imprisoned in Vermont; no prejudice shown. | Juror was statutorily disqualified because supervised release in Vermont was a continuation of the sentence; juror nondisclosure tainted the verdict. | Court held § 962(a)(5) inapplicable: "imprisonment in this state" requires confinement in Vermont; supervised release is not imprisonment. No new trial. |
| Whether Perrault's post-trial motion for a new trial was timely under V.R.Cr.P. 33. | Motion was untimely (filed after 10 days) unless treated as based on newly discovered evidence; even if treated as new evidence, it would not likely lead to acquittal. | Prior filings/voir dire requests meant motion should be considered despite timing; discovery of juror identity was newly discovered. | Court did not need to resolve timing; concluded even as "newly discovered" evidence it would not likely lead to acquittal because § 962(a)(5) did not apply and no actual prejudice shown. |
| Standard for relief when a statutorily disqualified juror serves and whether Perrault met it. | Requiring proof of actual prejudice or dishonest questionnaire response is proper; here juror’s incorrect answer was innocent mistake and juror denied bias. | Presence of any felon juror inherently prejudices defendant; actual prejudice standard should not apply. | Court rejected per se rule; required proof of actual prejudice or dishonest concealment. Juror testified her nondisclosure was mistaken, not dishonest; Perrault conceded no actual prejudice—so no relief. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove Perrault knowingly possessed depressant/stimulant (18 V.S.A. § 4234(a)(1)). | Evidence (backpack control, mixed pills in bottle, packaging, circumstances, evasive answers) supported inference of dominion and guilty knowledge. | Pills included some prescribed to brother; Perrault testified he found red pills at work and did not know they were methylphenidate—insufficient proof of knowledge. | Court held evidence sufficient: circumstantial facts allowed jury to infer dominion and knowing possession; credibility choices are for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Koveos, 732 A.2d 722 (Vt. 1999) (discussing preservation and plain-error review for juror issues)
- State v. Sheppard, 582 A.2d 116 (Vt. 1990) (timeliness of post-trial motions and limits on new-trial review)
- State v. Charbonneau, 25 A.3d 553 (Vt. 2011) (newly discovered evidence must likely lead to acquittal to justify new trial)
- State v. McAllister, 945 A.2d 863 (Vt. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (distinguishing confinement from parole/supervision)
- United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (rejecting per se rule invalidating verdicts because a felon served on the jury; requiring proof of juror partiality)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (materiality and dishonesty of juror questionnaire answers relevant to juror challenge)