State v. Brown
| Decision Date | 26 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-384.,03-384. |
| Citation | 2005 VT 104,890 A.2d 79 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Theodore L. BROWN |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Deputy Defender General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.
Richard Verrochi, Pro Se, Amherst, New Hampshire, for Amicus Curiae Amherst Bail Bonds, Inc.
Present: REIBER, C.J., DOOLEY, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ., and ALLEN, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
¶ 1. Defendant appeals jury convictions of attempting to elude, reckless endangerment, and grossly negligent operation. He also appeals an order forfeiting his $5000 bail. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) bail forfeiture was erroneous because his appearance was not required and his absence was excusable because he was in federal custody; (2) he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to counsel; (3) the trial court erred in preventing him from reasserting a defense of insanity; and (4) the trial court erred in instructing the jury that aiming was not an essential element of the reckless endangerment offense. We vacate the trial court's order forfeiting bail. We affirm defendant's waiver of counsel; however, we find that the trial court erred in denying defendant an opportunity to reinstate his insanity defense and in instructing the jury on the reckless endangerment charge. Therefore, we reverse defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.
¶ 2. The basic facts surrounding defendant's arrest and conviction are set out below. Additional facts are included in the analysis of the relevant issues. On November 4, 2002, Vermont State Police Officer Paul Gauthier, while watching traffic on Interstate 91, observed defendant's car traveling in excess of ninety miles per hour and directed the vehicle to stop. Defendant did not pull over; instead he sped up, eventually exiting the highway and leading police on a chase through Windsor County. Officer Gauthier followed defendant off the highway and onto smaller, eventually dirt, roads with his lights and siren activated. During the chase, Officer Gauthier lost sight of the vehicle. Over the radio Officer Gauthier heard that defendant had been sighted and then saw defendant's car approaching his stopped cruiser. Defendant's car swerved towards the cruiser, but no collision occurred. Eventually, police blockaded defendant's car and forced him to stop. Defendant was initially charged with attempting to elude and grossly negligent operation. Later, the prosecution amended the information and added a count of reckless endangerment for "aiming his car at a Vermont State Police cruiser." After arraignment, the court released defendant on $5000 cash bail.
¶ 3. Defendant's situation became more complicated when, in February 2003, he was charged with possession of marijuana and another offense of attempting to elude. Although these charges are not currently on appeal, they are indirectly involved in the first issue—the claim that the bail forfeiture was improper. The conditions of release on these charges were made concurrent with those on the earlier charges so that the $5000 cash bail also secured defendant's appearance on the later charges.
¶ 4. Defendant has a history of paranoia, beginning with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia in 1979. In March 2003, a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Weker, examined defendant and determined that he was competent to stand trial, but that his "mental illness deprived him of the capacity to conform his conduct to requirements of law." Dr. Weker's report chronicled defendant's belief that he was being targeted by law enforcement agencies, specifically that he "seemed quite fixed in the delusional belief that the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney in Burlington have conspired against him, and that the police want to put him in jail or, ideally, to kill him." He found that defendant had "disordered thought at the time of the alleged offenses" and that these thoughts "would have overridden Mr. Brown's . . . ability to conceptualize alternative courses of action." Specifically, he concluded that defendant believed that responding to the police command to stop would "put his life in jeopardy." On March 28, 2003, defendant filed a notice of intent to offer an insanity defense, indicating that Dr. Weker would testify on his behalf.
¶ 5. In April 2003, defendant's situation became even more complicated when federal authorities arrested him on a separate drug charge and placed him in the custody of U.S. Marshals. As a result of this arrest and incarceration, defendant was absent at an April 9, 2003 calendar call on the offenses charged in February and a status conference on all charges on April 29. Defendant's attorney attempted to excuse the absence, explaining that defendant was in federal custody. Nonetheless, the State filed for bail forfeiture and, after a hearing, the court granted forfeiture of defendant's bail on August 7, 2003.
¶ 6. Another outcome of his federal arrest was that defendant sought to cooperate with federal authorities. To be free to do so, defendant signed a stipulation with the State whereby the State agreed to strike pending warrants against defendant and modify his conditions of release and defendant agreed to permanently waive his right to assert an insanity or diminished capacity defense "or any other mental health defense." Soon after his release, defendant was arrested again for DUI and was thus unable to cooperate with federal authorities. He then filed a renewed notice to assert an insanity defense. The trial court denied defendant an opportunity to do so, based on the stipulation.
¶ 7. After the jury was empaneled, defendant moved to dismiss counsel and represent himself. The court questioned defendant and ultimately granted the motion. At trial, defendant's primary defense to the charge of reckless endangerment was that he did not aim at the police cruiser. During deliberations, the jury submitted a question to the court inquiring as to whether aiming was an essential element of the reckless endangerment charge. The court answered that aiming was not an element of the charge, but was instead part of the language used by the State in its charging information to describe the defendant's conduct.
¶ 8. The jury convicted defendant on all counts. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. Defendant then filed this appeal.
¶ 9. Defendant argues that the court erred in forfeiting his bail for failure to appear. Defendant claims that the forfeiture is erroneous because his presence was not required at the calendar call and status conference and because federal incarceration within the state is not grounds for forfeiture where the defendant is available for trial. Defendant first contends that because the Windsor District Court does not order that incarcerated defendants be transported to attend status conferences, the court may not punish defendant for his failure to appear at such a proceeding. The State responds that absolving defendant of his responsibility to attend court proceedings would negate the deterrent effect of bail because defendant chose to engage in the illegal conduct that precipitated his arrest by federal authorities which in turn made him unable to attend the hearing.1
¶ 10. Under 13 V.S.A. § 7560a, a court is authorized to forfeit bail if it finds that the person failed to appear at a hearing where appearance was required. We review the court's decision for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Hutchins, 134 Vt. 441, 443, 365 A.2d 507, 508 (1976) (). "[T]he sole constitutionally legitimate purpose of monetary conditions of release is to provide `additional assurance of the presence of the accused.'" State v. Cardinal, 147 Vt. 461, 464, 520 A.2d 984, 986 (1986) (quoting Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951)). Under our policy, forfeiture of bail exists not as a punitive tool, "but rather to assure that the defendant will appear at court when required." Id. (emphasis added). Therefore bail may not be forfeited for breach of conditions other than appearance because doing so "transforms monetary bail from a guarantor of appearance into a potentially punitive tool useful in the enforcement of all bail conditions." Id.
¶ 11. After a hearing, which consisted only of oral argument by the lawyers without evidence, the trial court found that defendant had been required to attend both the status conference and the earlier calendar call. Thus, the trial court found defendant to have breached the conditions of release requiring him to "PERSONALLY APPEAR IN COURT AS REQUIRED BY NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY."
¶ 12. We find two weaknesses in the court's reasoning. The first involves the requirement that defendant personally appear at the two hearings. The requirement that defendant appear at the status conference was based on a computer-generated notice that stated Apparently, every notice of court hearing issued by the court clerk contains this notice. We cannot find in the record, however, any notice concerning the calendar call. The docket entry simply indicates that a calendar conference was held by the court manager.
¶ 13. The court did not explain how it concluded that defendant was required to appear for the calendar call. With no evidence presented in support of the bail forfeiture motion, the court was apparently relying upon judicial notice of the court records, but those records contain no evidence that defendant was directed to appear at the calendar call.
¶ 14. The situation with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee, 07-334.
...to waive the right to counsel. State v. Pollard, 163 Vt. 199, 206-07, 657 A.2d 185, 190-91 (1995), or the insanity defense, State v. Brown, 2005 VT 104, ¶ 39, 179 Vt. 22, 890 A.2d 79. This Court examined a similar argument in Mumley, 153 Vt. at 305-06, 571 A.2d at 45. In Mumley, we distingu......
-
State v. Bonds
...in a way the Legislature intended.¶ 6. We review a trial court's decision to forfeit bail for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Brown,2005 VT 104, ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 22, 890 A.2d 79. Abuse of discretion requires a showing that the trial court withheld its discretion entirely or that it was ex......
-
State v. Martin
...law, such that the jury has not been misled." Id. We will reverse only if the charge undermines confidence in the jury's verdict. State v. Brown, 2005 VT 104, ¶ 43, 179 Vt. 22, 890 A.2d 79. To preserve an to a jury instruction, a party must object to the charge before the jury retires. V.R.......
- State v. Glenn