149 A.3d 928
Vt.2016Background
- Early-morning repossession: two repossession employees located and hooked a vehicle parked in a tenant lot on David Buckley’s property; they were unarmed and the lot was 10–15 feet from a public road and near defendant’s dwelling.
- Confrontation: defendant and his brother Peter went outside; defendant carried a shotgun (he said it was unloaded) and the parties’ testimony diverged on whether defendant pointed the gun or threatened to shoot.
- Evidence conflict: repossession employees testified defendant pointed the shotgun and threatened to shoot; defendant, his brother, and some tenants testified defendant pointed the gun into the air and did not threaten anyone.
- Jury instructions: trial court instructed on repossession privilege, breach of the peace, trespass, and that defendant must have acted reasonably; defendant did not request self-defense, defense-of-others, or defense-of-property instructions nor object at trial.
- Verdict and post-trial: jury convicted defendant of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct, acquitted on reckless endangerment; defendant moved for new trial raising omitted-instruction claims; trial court denied, finding no plain error; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Buckley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court committed plain error by not sua sponte instructing on self-defense and defense-of-others | No plain error—court’s charge allowed jurors to assess reasonableness and the defenses were not supported by the evidence; defendant denied committing the charged acts | Court should have instructed because evidence raised these defenses (defendant claimed he acted to protect himself/brother) | No plain error: defenses not required because defendant maintained innocence, evidence did not show imminent danger or necessity of deadly force, and omission was not obviously erroneous |
| Whether trial court erred by not instructing on defense-of-property | No plain error—court instructed jury to assess reasonableness and repossessor privilege; use of deadly force to repel trespassers is typically unreasonable | Defendant claims he had right to protect property and put repossessors in apprehension to stop trespass | No plain error: law disfavors deadly force against mere trespassers; evidence did not justify deadly-force defense; jury could consider reasonableness and rejected defendant’s claim |
| Whether the court’s repossession/collateral instruction improperly treated employees as privileged to be on property | State: instruction accurately explained UCC repossession privilege and breach-of-peace limits; evidence supported presenting the repossessor’s privilege | Defendant: repossessors were trespassers under common law and UCC does not displace that; admitted repossession order insufficient | Held: no plain error—court correctly instructed on repossession privilege and breach of the peace; even if repossessors trespassed, deadly-force defense still unavailable absent threat of serious harm |
| Whether omission of instructions affected substantial rights or resulted in miscarriage of justice | No—the charge viewed as whole permitted jurors to consider reasonableness; high plain-error standard not met | Yes—the jury lacked correct legal framework to consider statutory/common-law defenses | Held: high plain-error standard not met; instructions as given were adequate and not misleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. Cloutier, 211 A.2d 246 (Vt. 1965) (trial court must charge on issues indicated by evidence but objections must be raised to allow correction)
- State v. Vuley, 70 A.3d 940 (Vt. 2013) (plain-error test for jury instructions; very high bar)
- State v. Bourn, 58 A.3d 236 (Vt. 2012) (elemental discussion of aggravated assault by threat with deadly weapon)
- State v. Knapp, 509 A.2d 1010 (Vt. 1986) (defendant must make prima facie showing of self-defense elements to warrant instruction)
- State v. Bolaski, 95 A.3d 460 (Vt. 2014) (distinguishes cases where defendant admits conduct and seeks defensive instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Alexander, 531 S.E.2d 567 (Va. 2000) (owner may not use or threaten deadly force to repel mere trespassers; brandishing a weapon in defense of property is generally unjustified)