State v. Mead
54 A.3d 485
Vt.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder after a jury trial and appeals on four grounds; the court affirmed.
- The underlying incident occurred at a 2009 Burlington apartment party involving defendant, his ex-girlfriend Denise Wildasin, and Tim Nunes, during which defendant carried a 9‑mm Ruger SR9 and discharged shots.
- During and after the trial, a State witness Lt. Morrison and a juror had an offsite contact, which the court found to be an irregularity but not capable of affecting the verdict.
- Post-trial proceedings included consideration of admitting video excerpts from an uncounseled relief-from-abuse hearing in which defendant testified without counsel.
- The State sought to introduce evidence of prior bad acts by defendant against Wildasin to show motive and intent; the trial court admitted it following Rule 404(b) balancing.
- Defendant challenged the lack of jury unanimity instruction identifying which shots supported the conviction; the court found no plain error since shots were part of a single continuous sequence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror-witness contact violated fair trial | Contact could create extraneous influence on juror | Contact risked prejudice and compromised impartiality | No reversible error; contact not capable of affecting verdict; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of uncounseled RFA testimony excerpts | RFA material relevant to defendant's credibility and case context | Violates Fifth Amendment and right to counsel; unduly prejudicial | Harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt; no reversal |
| Admission of prior bad acts to show motive/intent | Prior abuse evidence contextualizes motive and intent | Prejudice outweighs probative value; not relevant to the charged act | Admissible under Rule 404(b) for motive/intent with appropriate balancing under Rule 403 |
| Unanimity instruction for multiple shots | Election of which shot supports conviction required to avoid nonunanimity | Courts must require election to ensure unanimity | Not plain error; multiple shots part of a single continuous transaction; no election required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Abdi, 2012 VT 4 (VT 2012) (extraneous juror influence standard and prejudice analysis)
- State v. McKeen, 165 Vt. 469 (Vt. 1995) (prejudice and capacity to affect verdict in juror irregularity)
- State v. Lee, 2008 VT 128 (VT 2008) (juror irregularity and capacity to affect verdict)
- State v. Camley, 140 Vt. 483 (VT 1981) (jury exposure to a judge’s remarks and deference to trial court)
- State v. Longley, 2007 VT 101 (VT 2007) (Rule 403 balancing in admission of prior bad acts)
- State v. Oscarson, 2004 VT 4 (VT 2004) (harmlessness of improperly admitted evidence when cumulative)
- State v. Charbonneau, 2009 VT 86 (VT 2009) (credibility undermined by cross-examination; cumulative evidence)
- State v. Yoh, 2006 VT 49A (VT 2006) (plain error review and preservation doctrine)