Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Shane Casey’s convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual assault. The court held that Casey waived his severance challenge by failing to make a clear and timely motion, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after his codefendant entered a midtrial no-contest plea, and that admission of the victim’s diary evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Casey preserved and was entitled to severance of his trial from Parnitzke's trial.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial or new trial after Parnitzke entered a midtrial no-contest plea and was removed from the case.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the victim's diary after the defense used it to impeach the victim and show bias.
Holdings
- Casey waived review of the severance issue because counsel's cryptic statement that the request was 'the same here' was not an express motion, did not request action from the court, and did not identify the asserted prejudice.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial or new trial because appropriate instructions could prevent the jury from speculating about the codefendant's absence, and the potential prejudice was not shown to be ineradicable.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the diary because the defense introduced it to impeach the victim and show bias, and the evidence was not admitted by the State as substantive hearsay.
Key quotations
“Merely stating, “[S]ame here, Judge” does not constitute a motion to sever.” (¶ 12)
“Declaring a mistrial is a last resort, only to be implemented if the taint is ineradicable” (¶ 16)
Factual background
Casey and Parnitzke, who were romantically involved, were prosecuted for sexual assaults allegedly occurring between 2005 and 2006. Their cases were joined because the charged conduct allegedly involved a common scheme or plan and closely connected times, places, and occasions. During the third joint trial, Parnitzke pleaded no contest to a reduced charge after three days, and the trial continued against Casey. Casey was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault, and the victim's diary was introduced after the defense used it in cross-examination.
Procedural history
The State prosecuted Casey and Stacey Parnitzke in joined proceedings involving multiple aggravated-sexual-assault charges. The first trial ended in a hung jury; the second produced convictions that were vacated and followed by a new trial because of improperly admitted evidence. During the third trial, Parnitzke pleaded no contest to a reduced charge and left the case, while Casey was convicted on two aggravated-sexual-assault counts. The trial court denied Casey's motion for a new trial, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.