State v. Duford
| Decision Date | 30 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-083,94-083 |
| Citation | 660 A.2d 736,163 Vt. 630 |
| Parties | , 7 NDLR P 5 STATE of Vermont v. James A. DUFORD. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Before ALLEN, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of burglary and petit larceny. He raises two claims: (1) that the prosecutor's withdrawal of the plea agreement at the status conference violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; and (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on diminished capacity. We affirm.
First, defendant argues that during the plea colloquy the trial court, as a matter of its supervisory authority, should have instituted a reasonable accommodation to defendant's mental incapacity in accordance with the ADA. Though the court had determined defendant to be competent to stand trial, the doctor's evaluation stated that his ability to understand the plea bargaining process was rudimentary and should be conducted through concrete examples. Defendant claims that the trial court ran afoul of this advice during the status conference, thus violating the ADA by failing to make a reasonable accommodation to defendant's mental disability.
On the morning of the status conference, there was a plea offer pending from the State. Defense counsel brought to the court's attention defendant's difficulties in understanding plea negotiations, and requested more time for defendant to reconsider the plea offer. The court granted the request. Once a plea agreement was reached, the trial judge questioned defendant regarding his understanding of the agreement. At that point, defendant stated he did not The prosecutor then indicated he wanted the matter set for trial. The trial judge inquired once more whether or not defendant had an agreement that day. When defendant answered, "[n]ot that I know of," the court scheduled a trial and defense counsel did not object.
Where defendant does not preserve an issue for appeal, we will not review it sua sponte short of plain error "so grave and serious as to strike at the very heart of a defendant's constitutional rights." State v. Mecier, 145 Vt. 173, 178, 488 A.2d 737, 741 (1984). Although defendant argues that the issue was raised in effect at sentencing through an equal protection claim, it was not raised prior to trial. Even at the sentencing hearing, the ADA was never mentioned. Consequently, we hold the issue was not preserved. In light of the fact the plea offer had been open for quite some time and because the trial court gave defendant additional time to accept the offer on the day of the status conference, we find no plain error.
Second, defendant claims the trial court erred in refusing to grant the requested jury instruction on diminished capacity. Where the evidence supports it, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kinney, 99-122.
...was diminished). Of course, if the evidentiary support is absent, the court need not give the instruction. See State v. Duford, 163 Vt. 630, 631, 660 A.2d 736, 737 (1995) (mem.) (no instruction required where evidence insufficient to establish defendant's diminished capacity); see also Stat......
-
State v. MacFarland
...anything in the record suggesting that she intended to rely on diminished capacity.¶ 18. The State also asks us to read State v. Duford, 163 Vt. 630, 660 A.2d 736 (1995) (mem.), as requiring defendants to provide notice of diminished capacity under Rule 12.1. But Duford does not help the St......
-
State v. MacFarland
...v. Duford, 163 Vt. 630, 660 A.2d 736 (1995) (mem.), as requiring defendants to provide notice of diminished capacity under Rule 12.1. But Duford does not help the State, indeed, stands for the opposite conclusion. In Duford, we discussed whether the trial court erred in denying a defendant'......
-
State v. Trombley
...review a request to charge the jury on diminished capacity in relation to the state of mind element of a crime. State v. Duford, 163 Vt. 630, 630, 660 A.2d 736, 737 (1995) (mem.). We conclude that the trial court was correct in refusing to include the diminished capacity charge to the jury ......