State v. Hardy, 08-301.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-301.,08-301. |
| Citation | 2008 VT 119,965 A.2d 478 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Norman HARDY, Jr. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Present: REIBER, C.J., DOOLEY and JOHNSON, JJ.
¶ 1. Defendant appeals from an order of the district court, denying him bail. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in citing Battered Women's Syndrome (BWS) in its written decision and in relying on syndrome evidence in finding that the evidence of guilt was great.
¶ 2. On June 22, 2008, several members of the Brattleboro Police Department responded to a disturbance report at defendant's address. One of the officers was familiar with defendant and the complainant, A.M., because of past domestic-assault calls made by A.M. to the Brattleboro police. A.M. and defendant had been dating for several years, lived together, and shared the care of their one-year-old son. When the officers first encountered A.M. on June 22, they noticed that her face was red and that she had a "slight reddening around the side of her neck."
¶ 3. Police officers took A.M.'s statement, in which she disclosed the following. Early the morning of June 22, A.M. reported defendant woke her up and demanded her car keys, cell phone, and money. Defendant told her that he needed the items before leaving the home. When A.M. refused to turn over the items, defendant grabbed her throat from behind with one of his hands, and forced her face onto the bed. Defendant then placed his other hand over A.M.'s nose and mouth and applied pressure so that she could not breathe. A.M. stated that defendant had strangled her for about thirty seconds, triggering a severe asthma attack.
¶ 4. When defendant released her, A.M. ran to the upstairs bathroom and locked the door. After defendant kicked open the door, he grabbed A.M. by the throat again, one hand around the front of her neck and the other around the back, again preventing A.M. from breathing. When defendant released A.M., he tried to tear down a shower curtain and smashed a mirror hanging in the bathroom. Defendant then struck A.M. in the face, forcing her to the floor. At this point, A.M. tried to escape by climbing out the bathroom window. Defendant pulled her back in by the hair and strangled her a final time.
¶ 5. One responding officer, Detective Carignan, noticed what he had been taught were signs of strangulation. A.M.'s voice was unusually hoarse, and she had scrapes and marks on her body, a red and irritated neck, and the beginnings of bruising on her throat. Detective Carignan also observed that there appeared to be broken capillaries in A.M.'s eyes, another typical sign of strangulation. Defendant also spoke with Detective Carignan at the scene. Admitting that it was "possible" that he made contact with A.M.'s throat in lowering her to the floor, defendant claimed that he had been trying only to defend himself against A.M. At this time, A.M. also turned a diary over to Detective Carignan. In the diary, A.M. documented an assault that had taken place on June 4, 2008, in which defendant strangled A.M. in the street, caused her to vomit, and impeded her breathing. A.M. told Detective Carignan that defendant had destroyed a previous diary in which she had described other occasions of abuse.
¶ 6. On June 23, 2008, based on the June 22 incident, defendant was arraigned on charges of first-degree domestic assault, charged as a habitual offender, and held without bail. If found to be a habitual offender, defendant can be sentenced to life in prison. 13 V.S.A. § 11. Pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553, the court set a weight-of the-evidence hearing for July 3, 2008. At this hearing, the State offered the testimony of A.M. A.M. offered a somewhat different version of events than the one recounted in the sworn statement taken by Detective Carignan. A.M. explained that she had been trying to prevent defendant from leaving the apartment when defendant "tried to restrain [her] in a sense." A.M. denied having had a previous diary and attributed her difficulty breathing to asthma anxiety attacks that she suffered when she was "worked up." A.M. also claimed that she had destroyed the bathroom mirror. Detective Carignan testified about his observations of A.M., defendant, and their home following the June 22 incident. The court also admitted a DVD of a sworn statement given by A.M. on the day of the alleged assault.
¶ 7. On July 10, 2008, the court issued written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an entry order regarding defendant's bail status. Finding A.M.'s testimony to be "inconsistent and highly confusing," the court noted several inculpatory aspects of A.M.'s testimony, including: (1) A.M.'s admission that defendant had his arm around her jaw; (2) A.M.'s acknowledgment that she had been climbing out the window and was afraid that defendant might harm her (3) A.M.'s confirmation that defendant's encounters with her had become more violent and frequent; and (4) A.M.'s testimony that it "felt like" defendant was choking her "at the time." The court found A.M.'s initial statement to police to be more credible in part because A.M.'s physical condition corroborated her initial story, as did the state of the scene.
¶ 8. In its conclusions of law, the court noted that "[i]t is not unusual for a victim of repeated domestic violence to minimize, explain away, or fully recant allegations of abuse." After citing several of this Court's decisions on the admissibility of Battered Women's Syndrome evidence, the court found the present case to be one of the instances in which "a victim of domestic violence ... chooses to remain in an abusive relationship and [to] assist her attacker in legal proceedings." For these reasons, the court found that it would be "doubtful" that a jury would believe A.M.'s later account of the June 22 incident. In finding that the evidence of guilt was great, the court also noted that defendant posed a continued risk to A.M., had violated his parole, had violated his probation, had been convicted of escape, and had failed to appear for court proceedings on six...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sawyer
...by examining the record presented in the trial court. V.R.A.P. 9(b)(2). We do so by applying the standard enunciated in Duff. State v. Hardy, 2008 VT 119, ¶ 10, 184 Vt. 618, 965 A.2d 478 (mem.).¶ 5. Applying the standard described above, we now discuss the facts of this case taken in the li......
-
State v. Blodgett
...can fairly and reasonably convince a factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of the charged offense. State v. Hardy, 2008 VT 119, ¶ 10, 184 Vt. 618, 965 A.2d 478 (mem.); State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433, 440, 563 A.2d 258, 263 (1989). In reviewing the court's ruling on this ......
-
State Of Vt. v. Pellerin
...assumed that 13 V.S.A. § 7553 applies to habitual offenders facing the potential for life imprisonment under 13 V.S.A. § 11, see State v. Hardy, 2008 VT 119, ¶ 6, 184 Vt. 618, 965 A.2d 478 State v. Gardner, 167 Vt. 600, 600, 709 A.2d 499, 500 (1998) (mem.), we have never squarely addressed ......
-
State v. Sawyer
...by examining the record presented in the trial court. V.R.A.P. 9(b)(2). We do so by applying the standard enunciated in Duff. State v. Hardy, 2008 VT 119, ¶ 10, 184 Vt. 618, 965 A.2d 478 (mem.). ¶ 5. Applying the standard described above, we now discuss the facts of this case taken in the l......