State v. Wetter, 35 A.3d 962

Wetter was charged with three counts of endeavoring to incite a felony under 13 V.S.A. § 7 and one count of conspiracy under 13 V.S.A. § 1404 based on allegedly plotting to have Wetter’s husband killed.
A detective testified about a February 23, 2007 telephone conversation between Wetter and an informant, which Wetter allegedly knew was being listened to by the detective on speakerphone.
The conversation included Wetter’s statements about finding a killer and Wetter’s hesitation to discuss details over the phone, leading to a planned in-person meeting with a suspect.
The State presented evidence from a hotel-room meeting where Wetter’s daughter Jennifer provided details to Detective Estes, including the target’s routine and life insurance policy, with a proposed price of $20,000.
Wetter challenged the admissibility of the telephone-call testimony as a violation of Article I, ch. I, art. 11 privacy, sought a renunciation defense instruction under 13 V.S.A. § 1406, and moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; the trial court denied these challenges, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article 11 privacy and admissibility of recorded phone-call testimony	Wetter argues the detective’s testimony about the phone call violated Article 11 privacy	Wetter asserts a legitimate expectation of privacy in the call	Testimony admissible; no Article 11 violation
Renunciation defense instruction	Wetter seeks a jury instruction on renunciation under § 1406	Renunciation not shown by Wetter’s statements	No error; renunciation defense not established by the record
Newly discovered evidence and motion for new trial	Jennifer Roxanna statements constitute newly discovered evidence	Motion lacked merit under Mecier and failed to show a different outcome	Motion properly denied; no evidentiary hearing required

State v. Bryant, 183 Vt. 355 (2008 VT 39) (privacy analysis under Article 11 implies subjective expectation of privacy, tested against social norms)
State v. Rogers, 638 A.2d 569 (1993) (subjective privacy evidenced by actions; presence of private expectations evaluated by conduct)
Commonwealth v. Eason, 694 N.E.2d 1264 (Mass. 1998) (warrantless eavesdropping on private conversations not fully private when third-party transmission occurs)
State v. Mecier, 488 A.2d 737 (1984) (new-trial motion standard; Mecier framework for newly discovered evidence)
State v. Unwin, 458 A.2d 1107 (1983) (requirement of hearing when grounds stated with particularity for Rule 33)