State v. Jeffrey Reed, 169 A.3d 1278

On Nov. 23, 2013 a hunter saw a deer fall; defendant later approached the deer and made varying statements about how the antler nub came off. A game warden responded and interviewed defendant at the scene.
Warden observed a spikehorn deer with a mark on an antler and gunpowder residue in defendant’s rifle; defendant gave multiple, inconsistent accounts (denying knowledge, blaming the witness, then saying the antler fell off when he laid a knife on it).
State charged defendant under 13 V.S.A. § 1754(a) (knowingly giving false information to law enforcement with purpose to implicate another or deflect an investigation) and two hunting-related offenses; jury acquitted on the hunting counts and convicted under § 1754(a).
The information and supporting affidavit alleged defendant “changed his story” repeatedly but did not identify which specific statement was false or intended to deflect the investigation.
Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on insufficiency grounds; trial court denied; on appeal the Supreme Court reviewed whether evidence supported that any specific statement was knowingly false and made with the purpose to deflect the investigation.

Issue	State's Argument	Reed's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported conviction under § 1754(a) (knowingly false statement to law enforcement made with purpose to deflect investigation)	Multiple inconsistent statements to the warden — including explanations about the antler — demonstrate knowingly false information intended to deflect investigation	Inconsistencies alone do not establish a specific knowingly false statement made with the purpose to deflect; State failed to identify which statement was the false one	Reversed: State failed to prove the required elements because the charging documents, evidence, and instructions did not identify which specific statement was knowingly false and, even if some statements were false, they did not necessarily meet the statutory ‘‘deflect’’ purpose

State v. Vuley, 193 Vt. 622, 70 A.3d 940 (standard of review for judgment of acquittal)
State v. Gilman, 158 Vt. 210, 608 A.2d 660 (requirement that State specify act when evidence of more than one act could constitute the offense; unanimity protection)
Commonwealth v. Morse, 10 N.E.3d 1109 (Mass.) (statute interpreted to reach affirmative misdirection that induces third‑party action; simple denials not sufficient to ‘‘mislead’’)
Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (U.S.) (federal §1001 broader model of criminalizing materially false statements, contrasted with Vermont’s narrower ‘‘deflect’’ language)