State v. Synnott, 2005 VT 19

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Stephen Synnott’s convictions for lewd and lascivious behavior, second-degree unlawful restraint, and attempted sexual assault. The court held that evidence of Synnott’s post-arrest behavior was admissible, the unlawful-restraint conviction was independently supportable, and the evidence established attempted sexual assault. The court also rejected challenges to the jury instructions and declined to review an unrecorded supplemental-instruction claim.

Holdings

1. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to preview the videotape before ruling on the motion in limine, but the error was not reversible because the court later viewed the tape, weighed its probative value against prejudice, and acted within its broad discretion in admitting the evidence.
2. The unlawful-restraint conviction may stand separately from the lewd-and-lascivious-behavior conviction because defendant's approximately one-and-one-half-hour confinement of the complainant was criminally significant in itself rather than merely incidental to the sexual conduct.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support the attempted sexual assault conviction, and defendant's alleged voluntary cessation of his advances did not negate guilt after he had committed the requisite overt acts.
4. The jury instructions adequately explained the intent element because, even if the original instructions were ambiguous, the supplemental instruction told the jury that the State had to prove defendant intended to have sexual intercourse without the complainant's consent and took steps toward accomplishing that end.
5. The court declined to review defendant's challenge to the alleged supplemental instruction because defendant failed to provide a record showing that the trial court gave the instruction he claimed was erroneous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony and videotape concerning defendant's behavior in a police-station holding cell.
2. Whether defendant's unlawful-restraint conviction was impermissibly based on confinement incidental to the lewd-and-lascivious-behavior charge.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's attempted sexual assault conviction.
4. Whether the jury instructions adequately conveyed the intent element of attempted sexual assault.
5. Whether the Supreme Court could review defendant's challenge to an alleged supplemental jury instruction when defendant failed to provide a record showing that the instruction was given.

Disposition

affirmed