152 A.3d 437
Vt.2016Background
- Defendant argued with his wife; police responded; defendant ran down a hallway toward officers carrying a large knife (described as a machete), yelled, refused orders, and later ingested pills; officers removed him and charged him with multiple counts related to wife and officers.
- Seven charges were filed: five concerning the complainant (including aggravated domestic assault and unlawful restraint) and two concerning officers (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on an officer; attempted simple assault by menace on an officer).
- During trial, defense counsel asked improper/irrelevant cross‑examination questions of the complainant about her sexual preferences and Facebook messages; objections were sustained but some questions had been asked and a juror later asked about considering the complainant’s behavior.
- The trial court granted a partial mistrial as to counts that depended on the complainant’s credibility but proceeded to verdict on the two officer‑related counts; the jury convicted the defendant on aggravated assault (deadly weapon on an officer) and attempted simple assault (officer by menace).
- Post‑trial, defendant moved to dismiss retrial of the mistried counts on double‑jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied dismissal but allowed interlocutory appeal. On consolidated appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the aggravated‑assault conviction, vacated the attempted simple‑assault conviction as a lesser‑included offense, and reversed denial of the motion to dismiss retrial of the mistried counts (double jeopardy barred retrial).
Issues
| Issue | State/Prosecution Argument | Defendant Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for specific intent (aggravated assault; attempted assault) | Officer testimony and circumstantial evidence (running toward officers with knife, half‑raised, angry) permitted inference of intent to threaten officers | Defendant intended self‑harm, not to threaten officers | Convictions supported as to aggravated assault; evidence sufficient to infer specific intent to threaten officers |
| Jury instructions on intent and "secret intent" language | Instructions as a whole properly required subjective specific intent and permitted inference from conduct | Instruction referencing "secret intent" risked omitting required subjective element | No reversible error; instructions as a whole conveyed subjective intent requirement accurately |
| Admission of prior bad acts (domestic incidents) | Relevant as context; even if erroneously admitted, any error was harmless because evidence did not pertain to officer charges and jury was instructed to ignore it | Admission was prejudicial and should have been excluded under Rules 404(b)/403 | Any error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt given other strong officer testimony and limiting instruction |
| Double jeopardy from dual assault convictions (aggravated assault and attempted simple assault) | No preservation at trial but reviewable for plain error; statutes can overlap but analysis depends on elements | Convictions violate Double Jeopardy because attempted simple assault is lesser‑included offense of aggravated assault as charged | Held plain error: convictions violate Double Jeopardy; vacated attempted simple assault; State may elect which conviction to dismiss |
| Partial mistrial and retrial of mistried counts (double jeopardy issue) | Trial court reasonably found juror prejudice from improper cross‑examination and declared mistrial limited to complainant‑dependent counts | Mistrial was not manifestly necessary; questions were asked in good faith, objections sustained, cure (limiting instruction or other measures) was available; retrial barred | Granting partial mistrial was an abuse of discretion; jeopardy had attached — retrial of the mistried counts is barred by Double Jeopardy; trial court’s denial of dismissal reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (standard of "manifest necessity" for mistrial; deference to trial judge when mistrial based on potentially prejudicial defense remarks)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (distinction between forfeiture and waiver; plain‑error review for forfeited claims)
- State v. Cahill, 194 Vt. 335 (Vt. 2013) (specific intent requirement for aggravated assault; caution against objective‑perception instruction)
- State v. Bourn, 192 Vt. 270 (Vt. 2012) (aggravated assault is a specific‑intent crime; instruction requirements)
- State v. Bolio, 159 Vt. 250 (Vt. 1992) (simple assault can be a lesser‑included offense of aggravated assault)
- Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1973) (jeopardy attaches; limits on retrial when court discharges jury without manifest necessity)
- In re Pannu, 188 Vt. 279 (Vt. 2010) (mistrial and contempt when counsel repeatedly violated rape‑shield protections)