State v. Damon

178 Vt. 564 (2005) · Supreme Court of Vermont · May 2, 2005

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Joshua Damon's motion to dismiss a charge of aiding in the commission of petit larceny. The court held that Vermont continues to recognize the common-law offense of aiding in the commission of a misdemeanor and that 13 V.S.A. § 3, which addresses felony liability, did not repeal that offense. The court also concluded that the evidence, including Damon's admissions and the surrounding circumstantial evidence, supported a prima facie case.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont
Jurisdiction
Vermont
Decision date
May 2, 2005
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss a charge of aiding in the commission of petit larceny for lack of a prima facie case.
Standard of review
The statutory-existence issue was reviewed de novo. The denial of the V.R.Cr.P. 12(d) motion to dismiss was reviewed by determining whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, would fairly and reasonably tend to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Joshua Damon v. State of Vermont
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurestatutory interpretationevidence

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedurestatutory interpretationevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Vermont recognizes a common-law offense of aiding in the commission of a misdemeanor notwithstanding 13 V.S.A. § 3, which expressly addresses aiding in the commission of a felony.
  2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that Damon aided in the commission of petit larceny.

Holdings

  1. Vermont continues to recognize the common-law rule that a person who knowingly and intentionally participates in the commission of a misdemeanor is a principal and may be convicted as such. The enactment of 13 V.S.A. § 3 did not repeal that rule because the statute addresses only felony liability and does not clearly or unambiguously displace the common law.
  2. The State presented sufficient evidence for a prima facie case that Damon aided in the commission of petit larceny. His admissions, the witnesses' observations, and the discovery of a crowbar and flashlight reasonably tended to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in the thefts.

Key quotations

13 V.S.A. § 3 addresses only felony liability, and thus did not repeal the common law crime of aiding in the commission of a misdemeanor. (566)
We refuse to “ascribe legislative intent to a mere act of omitting” the misdemeanor language in the 1973 amendment to 13 V.S.A. § 3. (566)
This circumstantial evidence, coupled with defendant’s admissions, reasonably tend to show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offense. (567)

Factual background

Two purses were stolen from vehicles parked at businesses on Putney Road in Brattleboro. A clerk observed Brian Whidden steal one purse after Damon emerged from the same blue car and went toward the bathroom; police later stopped the blue car with both men inside and observed a flashlight and crowbar. After receiving Miranda warnings, Damon admitted driving Whidden to the grocery-store lot, watching Whidden smash a vehicle window, driving Whidden to the gas station, and transporting him while the purses were discarded.

Procedural history

Damon was charged with aiding in the commission of petit larceny, a misdemeanor. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss, holding that a person who knowingly and intentionally participates in a misdemeanor may be prosecuted as a principal and that the evidence supported a reasonable inference that Damon acted as the getaway driver. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…