State v. Wetter

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Rebecca Wetter’s convictions for endeavoring to incite a felony and conspiracy arising from an alleged plot to kill her husband. The court held that a detective’s testimony about a telephone conversation monitored with the informant’s consent did not violate Wetter’s privacy rights under Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. The court also held that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on renunciation and that the trial court properly denied Wetter’s motion for a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence without an evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. A defendant has no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone conversation when the defendant does not know the conditions at the other end of the call and the other participant broadcasts the conversation to a third party; therefore, the detective did not need a warrant and his testimony was properly admitted.
2. The trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on renunciation because Wetter's statements showed, at most, a change in plans or an effort to avoid detection, not conduct designed to prevent the crime or a timely, positive statement that she would not participate.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing because the proffered evidence was merely impeaching, did not reasonably demonstrate a different trial result, and the motion lacked merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether admission of a detective's testimony about a telephone conversation that he overheard on speakerphone without the defendant's knowledge violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy under Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
2. Whether the evidence required a jury instruction on the statutory defense of renunciation under 13 V.S.A. § 1406(1) and (3).
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed