State v. Glen Haskins, Jr.

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Glen Haskins, Jr.'s conviction for attempted second-degree murder arising from a 2012 stabbing in Burlington. The court held that the trial court improperly excluded proposed testimony about a witness's statement to police because it was offered to show falsity rather than truth, but concluded the error was harmless. The court also addressed challenges to the reasonable-doubt and intent-to-kill jury instructions.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred by excluding the officer's testimony on hearsay grounds because the testimony was offered to show that Limoge was lying about what he had overheard, not to prove the truth of the asserted statement. The error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The trial court did not err by explaining that proof beyond a reasonable doubt means being convinced with 'great certainty' rather than 'utmost certainty.'
3. The intent instruction properly stated the law and did not improperly suggest that defendant possessed an intent to kill.
4. The trial court did not commit plain error, because the instructions as a whole were not misleading and expressly required proof of every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly excluded a police officer's testimony about Chad Limoge's report that he learned defendant was the assailant from statements by other witnesses.
2. Whether instructing the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires conviction with 'great certainty' misstated the burden of proof.
3. Whether the intent-to-kill instruction improperly suggested that defendant possessed the required intent.
4. Whether the court committed plain error by permitting the jury to infer intent to kill from the use and manner of use of a deadly weapon without separately instructing that the underlying facts had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

affirmed