State v. Jayveon E. Caballero, 279 A.3d 676

Background

After a bar fight in Barre, defendant Jayveon Caballero repeatedly threatened to kill the victim (Markus Austin) after the victim punched defendant’s girlfriend and fractured her jaw. Defendant left, obtained a handgun, and drove to the victim’s apartment complex.
Security-camera footage and eyewitness testimony showed defendant at the victim’s parked car around 4:25 a.m.; a puff of material (consistent with glass powder) appeared near the passenger side of the windshield seconds after the car stopped. The neighbor saw defendant with a gun and then saw him lower it and leave.
Crime-scene and forensic evidence (windshield defect, bullet trajectory, bullet fragment inside the car, blood patterns, and a cigarette butt with defendant’s DNA) supported that a bullet entered the windshield at an angle and that the victim was seated in the driver’s seat when shot.
Defendant initially fled Vermont, was later arrested in Florida, tried on first-degree murder (reduced at verdict to second-degree), convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 25 years to life.
On appeal defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to intent/wantonness, (2) exclusion of a remorse statement to his cousin’s girlfriend as an excited utterance, (3) the prosecutor’s publication to the jury of three gruesome but unadmitted crime-scene photographs, and (4) cumulative prejudicial effect of these rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder (intent/wantonness)	Evidence (threats, fetched a loaded gun, waited for victim, fired into occupied windshield, forensic trajectory) supports inference of intent or wanton disregard.	Evidence insufficient: neighbor saw defendant lowering gun, lack of glass on victim, could have been a warning shot—no subjective awareness of deadly risk.	Affirmed. Evidence—direct and circumstantial—permitted reasonable inference defendant intended to kill or acted in wanton disregard of a deadly risk.
Exclusion of post-shooting remorse statement (excited utterance)	Statement was hearsay and properly excluded.	Statement (≈3 hours after shooting) was an excited utterance showing lack of intent; its exclusion denied right to present a defense.	Court found trial court applied wrong timing-focused test (abuse), but error was harmless: statement minimally probative and cumulative of other testimony.
Publication to jury of three unadmitted gruesome photos	Photos were evidentiary and relevant to victim’s position; not unduly prejudicial.	Publication of graphic, unadmitted photos unfairly prejudiced jury and requires reversal.	No reversal. Plain-error review: photos were relevant, similar to admitted images, and defendant failed to show substantial effect on verdict.
Cumulative error / new trial	Errors together deprived defendant of fair trial.	No cumulative prejudice; each error was non-prejudicial or harmless.	Affirmed. No showing that cumulative effect produced miscarriage of justice.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hatcher, 706 A.2d 429 (Vt. 1997) (defines mental element for second-degree murder: intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, or wanton disregard).
State v. Baird, 175 A.3d 493 (Vt. 2017) (wantonness = extremely reckless conduct disregarding probable death or great bodily harm; subjective awareness required).
State v. Bourgoin, 254 A.3d 217 (Vt. 2021) (circumstantial evidence may support inferences of knowledge; defendant must have been aware of his actions).
State v. Durenleau, 652 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1994) (jury may draw rational inferences from circumstantial evidence; State need not exclude every hypothesis of innocence).
State v. Shaw, 542 A.2d 1106 (Vt. 1987) (excited-utterance exception not limited to immediate statements; declarant’s continuing excited condition matters).
State v. Verrinder, 637 A.2d 1382 (Vt. 1993) (trial court must determine preliminarily whether declarant remained under stress of the event for excited-utterance admissibility).
State v. Little, 705 A.2d 177 (Vt. 1997) (photographs are admissible if evidentially relevant to material issues; exclusion only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value).
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (due process can require admission of critical third-party confessions in some circumstances).
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (a trial court abuses discretion when it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law).