State v. Savo
Decision Date | 02 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 300-80,300-80 |
Citation | 139 Vt. 644,433 A.2d 292 |
Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Danny SAVO. |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Mark J. Keller, Chittenden County State's Atty., Nancy G. Sheahan, Deputy State's Atty., and Timothy U. Martin, Law Clerk, on the brief, Burlington, for plaintiff.
James L. Morse, Defender Gen., William A. Nelson, Appellate Defender, Stephen Gould, and Danforth Cardozo, III, Law Clerk, on the brief, Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and LARROW, BILLINGS, HILL and UNDERWOOD, JJ.
A few minutes before 3:00 a. m. on May 17, 1980, a woman who lived across from a Burlington restaurant awoke to the sound of breaking glass. Upon looking out her window she saw the defendant, whom she knew, picking glass out of one of the restaurant windows. A car approached and the defendant fled. The woman called the police; while on the phone she noticed the defendant had returned and entered the restaurant. The police arrived within minutes. They called for the defendant to come out; hearing no reply two officers entered the building. They found the defendant in the ladies room, either lying or crouched on the floor with a screwdriver in his lap. One of the officers pulled him out from under the sink and he was then placed under arrest. Both officers testified that the defendant displayed signs of drunkenness including slurred speech and difficulty in walking. Although the defendant was required to go through the restaurant to get to the ladies room nothing had been touched.
The defendant was convicted of burglary in the nighttime in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1201. One of the essential elements of this offense is the presence of a specific intent, here to commit a larceny. State v. McMann, 133 Vt. 288, 290, 336 A.2d 190, 192 (1975). The issue of whether there was sufficient evidence of this element was not raised by the defendant's brief even though motions based on the insufficiency of the evidence were made at the close of the State's case-in-chief, and post trial. Nevertheless this Court has in the past stated it will review the question of the sufficiency of the evidence if plain error appears. State v. Trombley, 136 Vt. 333, 335, 338 A.2d 433, 435 (1978).
Intent to commit a larceny at the time of entry, like the other elements of the crime, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Olds, 139 Vt. ---, --- A.2d --- (1981); State v. Cline, 139 Vt. ---, 430 A.2d 455 (1981). The test to be applied in passing upon the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal is whether the trier of fact on the evidence presented would have been justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence presented in the instant case plainly has no such cogency. The evidence here merely establishes an unlawful entry during the night by a man who had been drinking, possessing a screwdriver, rapid arrival of the police and that the defendant passed through the restaurant on his way to the ladies' room without disturbing anything. Evidence which only raises a suspicion of guilt, or leaves it uncertain or dependent upon conjecture is insufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. Id. The evidence presented as a whole, even taken in the light most favorable to the State, fails to justify the submission of the question of intent to the jury. Disposition on this basis makes it unnecessary to consider his claims of improprieties in the instructions to the jury and the prosecutor's closing argument.
Our holding that there was insufficient evidence of intent requires that we consider one further issue, the possible entry of judgment for a lesser included offense. The trial court instructed the jury on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Crawford
...(applying plain error review); State v. Meza , 263 P.3d 424, 426 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (applying plain error review) ; State v. Savo , 139 Vt. 644, 433 A.2d 292, 293 (1981) (applying plain error review) ; Holt v. Commonwealth , 66 Va.App. 199, 783 S.E.2d 546, 551 (2016) (en banc) (stating un......
-
State v. Yoh
...affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court."); State v. Savo, 139 Vt. 644, 646, 433 A.2d 292, 293 (1981) (considering sufficiency of evidence under plain-error standard despite the defendant's failure to raise the issue in his br......
-
People v. Lacallo
...State v. Reynolds, 250 Or.App. 516, 280 P.3d 1046, 1054 (2012) ; State v. Meza, 263 P.3d 424, 426 (Utah Ct.App.2011) ; State v. Savo, 139 Vt. 644, 433 A.2d 292, 293 (1981) ; but see State v. Thomas, 62 Conn.App. 356, 772 A.2d 611, 615 (2001) ; Pena v. State, 294 P.3d 13, 18 n. 2 (Wyo.2013).......
-
People v. Lacallo
...State v. Reynolds, 250 Or.App. 516, 280 P.3d 1046, 1054 (2012); State v. Meza, 263 P.3d 424, 426 (Utah Ct.App.2011); State v. Savo, 139 Vt. 644, 433 A.2d 292, 293 (1981); but see State v. Thomas, 62 Conn.App. 356, 772 A.2d 611, 615 (2001); Pena v. State, 294 P.3d 13, 18 n. 2 (Wyo.2013). 7.S......
-
Ruminations
...Inc., 135 Vt. 454, 455 (1977); Michlin v. Roberts, 132 Vt. 154 (1974). [53] State v. Nicasio, 136 Vt. 162 (1978); State v. Savo, 139 Vt. 644, 647(1981). [54] Whitney v. Fisher, 138 Vt. 468, 472 (1980); Baldwin v. State, 125 Vt. 317 (1965); Herbert v. Layman, 125Vt. 481 (1966). [55] State v.......