 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Russo10/8/2004
uittal is only proper if there is no evidence to substantiate a jury verdict); State v. Couture, 169 Vt. 222, 226, 734 A.2d 524, 527 (1999). We will grant a judgment of acquittal only where no reasonable juror could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Turner, 2003 VT 73, 7; Couture, 169 Vt. at 226, 734 A.2d at 527. We cannot conclude that defendant has demonstrated that the charged conduct was impossible. Here, a reasonable juror could have based the conviction on the testimony of McKay and other witnesses, as well as circumstantial physical evidence.
8. In addition to claiming the impossibility of the events for which he was convicted, defendant argues that the State did not introduce sufficient evidence of his specific intent to harm McKay and that the only evidence regarding specific intent was put forth by the defense. It is common, however, that the mental element of an offense must be inferred from the defendant's conduct. See State v. Alexander, 173 Vt. 376, 385, 795 A.2d 1248, 1255 (2002) (using the same facts to prove kidnapping act and intent). The State's evidence that defendant assaulted McKay is sufficient for a jury to infer that the assault was intentional. Allowing the State to use circumstantial evidence to prove intent does not, as defendant argues, relieve the State of its burden to prove each element of the crime. See State v. Findlay, 171 Vt. 594, 599, 765 A.2d 483, 489 (2000) (mem.). The jury was properly instructed on the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant specifically intended to assault McKay. The jury considered defendant's claim that due to his mental state he could not form specific intent to harm McKay and nonetheless chose to convict.
9. In a related argument, defendant contends that the trial judge prevented him from demonstrating his lack of specific intent by limiting the scope of his wife's testimony, the only defense witness. She was not permitted to testify that defendant's mother had lost her life savings as a result of the dispute between defendant and McKay or that her family was homeless and had applied for public assistance. Defendant also argues that the court's evidentiary rulings prevented the witness from describing any of the events leading up to the incident on November 17.
10. This issue has changed somewhat between its presentation to the trial court and its presentation here. The evidentiary issues began to arise when defense counsel wanted to show that defendant's mother had contributed substantial amounts of money and had lost it in the foreclosure, and so asked the witness who had made the down payment on the motel. After objection from the prosecution, defense counsel argued that the evidence went to defendant's mental state on the day of the incident. The court inquired about the mental state rationale because defendant had not given notice of an insanity defense. The court explained:
[T]he only defense I've heard about is this diminished capacity, which is related to alcohol consumption. So, his mental state at the time of the offense, if it ... I mean, what are you trying to show with his mental state if it's not to show he shouldn't be responsible because he was so upset he couldn't form the intent which then becomes an insanity defense[?]
Defense counsel responded that defendant "was so upset that he began drinking and he worried about everything, losing everything, his mother losing everything, that contributed to the drinking." The court responded that testimony about the mother contributing to the cost of the motel was not relevant, but that defense counsel could inquire about the foreclosure. The court added that evidence "that he was upset
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|