State v. Taylor

1

2023 VT 60

State of Vermont v. Walter Taylor, III

No. 22-AP-211

Supreme Court of Vermont

December 1, 2023

On Appeal from Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Criminal Division David R. Fenster, J.

Evan Meenan, Deputy State's Attorney, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew Valerio, Defender General, Rebecca Turner, Appellate Defender, and Clelia Casciola, Appellate Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Eaton, Carroll, Cohen and Waples, JJ.

WAPLES, J.

¶ 1.Defendant appeals from his convictions for aggravated assault, attempted domestic assault, assault and robbery, and obstruction of justice, following a jury trial. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a voluntary intoxication instruction and his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the obstruction-of-justice charge. We affirm.

¶ 2. The following evidence was presented at trial. On an evening in July 2021, defendant got into an argument with his ex-girlfriend, who was pregnant with the couple's second child. The argument began in defendant's apartment and continued outside in the apartment building's parking lot. Video surveillance captured the argument as well as defendant assaulting his ex-girlfriend. A neighbor heard the argument and went onto her second-floor balcony to see what was happening. The parking-lot area was well-lit and the neighbor saw a pregnant woman and a larger man standing close to one another in an aggressive stance, arguing. The neighbor called police. After several minutes, she went outside to observe the events because the argument was continuing and the police had not yet arrived. The neighbor heard defendant's ex-girlfriend tell defendant that she was pregnant and that he needed to stop hitting and hurting her she saw defendant shove his ex-girlfriend. The neighbor told defendant to get his hands off the woman and that the police were on their way. The neighbor was recording the incident on her cellphone; she wanted proof of what was happening because the police were taking a long time to arrive.

¶ 3. Defendant's ex-girlfriend alerted defendant that the neighbor was recording the incident on her cellphone. Defendant then charged toward the neighbor, swearing and threatening to kill her. The neighbor testified that defendant physically attacked her, punching her in the head and kicking her in the ribs. The neighbor saw defendant pick up her phone from the middle of the street and leave with it. The phone was never recovered. The neighbor did not see anyone else on the street that night aside from defendant and his ex-girlfriend.

¶ 4. A responding police officer found the neighbor in the road. The neighbor suffered multiple injuries including a broken nose, fractured ribs, and a large laceration on her forehead that required ten stitches. The State also submitted, among other things, photographs of the neighbor's injuries, video surveillance from outside the apartment that showed the argument and an assault, and evidence of blood on the steps leading to defendant's apartment.

¶ 5. Defendant's ex-girlfriend acknowledged fighting with defendant that evening. She testified that the fight concerned defendant's drinking and it escalated after she dumped out defendant's drink. The argument continued outside where defendant took a swing at her. The ex-girlfriend saw the neighbor come outside and yell that she had called the police. According to the ex-girlfriend, defendant then chased after two men walking down the street; he tried to hit them but missed and fell down because he was "pretty drunk." The ex-girlfriend said that one of the strangers on the street attacked the neighbor. She acknowledged telling police at the time that defendant hit her in the face, attacked the neighbor, and that she was scared of defendant.

¶ 6. The responding police officer also testified about the events that evening. She spoke with the ex-girlfriend, located the neighbor, and called an ambulance. The officer found defendant at the emergency room with one swollen hand and a laceration on the other. Defendant told the officer that he had been assaulted. The officer observed that defendant appeared mildly to moderately intoxicated. She testified that defendant was speaking and walking fine; he seemed very alert as to what was going on; he acknowledged pain by comments he was making; and he had also chosen to go to the emergency room.

¶ 7. Another neighbor who saw the attack also testified. He said he saw a man chasing a woman on the street and the man then physically assaulted the woman. Another woman came to the scene and this woman and defendant ran away. The witness did not see any other people on the street.

¶ 8. Defendant did not testify or present any evidence. As discussed in additional detail below, the court denied defendant's request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. It found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant was intoxicated to a point that would affect his ability to form the necessary mental state for the charged crimes. Defendant argued in his motion for a new trial that the court erred in denying his instruction request, and the court rejected this argument on the same ground. The court also denied defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the obstruction-of-justice charge. It deemed the State's evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that defendant assaulted the neighbor because she was attempting to record the events to provide evidence to police. The jury found defendant guilty of the charges noted above and this appeal followed.

I. Voluntary Intoxication Instruction

¶ 9. Defendant first argues that the court erred in denying his request for a voluntary intoxication instruction. He maintains that there was sufficient evidence to show that alcohol impairment prevented him from having the requisite mental state to commit the crimes for which he was convicted. Defendant points to evidence he believes supports his position, including: his ex-girlfriend's testimony that he had consumed two black cherry Mike's Harder Lemonades and some portion of a third; her statement that he stumbled and slurred his words "a little bit"; and photographs of several alcoholic beverage containers in his home. Defendant also cites his ex-girlfriend's testimony that their argument concerned his drinking; the responding officer's belief that he was minorly to moderately intoxicated; and his ex-girlfriend's testimony that he swung and missed when he tried to hit two strangers on the street and that he didn't connect because he was "pretty drunk." Defendant maintains that, in denying his request, the trial court inappropriately weighed the evidence and resolved conflicts in the State's favor.

¶ 10. We reject these arguments. There is no dispute that "[i]ntoxication may affect a person's ability to form the mental state requisite for conviction of certain crimes" and "[w]hen specific intent is an element of a crime, evidence of either voluntary or involuntary intoxication may be introduced to show that the defendant could not have formed the necessary intent." State v. Kinney, 171 Vt. 239, 243, 762 A.2d 833, 837 (2000) (quotation omitted). "Where there is evidence of intoxication such as to negate the requisite criminal intent, the court should normally instruct the jury that it may consider the intoxication evidence as bearing on intent." Id. (citing cases). "Of course, if the evidentiary support is absent, no such instruction is warranted." Id. (citing cases).

¶ 11. Defendant incorrectly asserts that even slight evidence of intoxication warrants an instruction. We have made clear that "[e]vidence of alcohol or drug consumption, even in large quantities" is not in itself sufficient to warrant an instruction. Id. There must be a nexus between such evidence and the effect it has on a defendant's mental state. "[I]ntoxication is not a defense unless it reaches the point where defendant fails to achieve the state of mental responsibility required by the charge." Id. (quotation omitted).

¶ 12. In Kinney, we found the evidence sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, although we found the question "relatively close." Id. at 244, 762 A.2d at 838. The defendant there was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and lewd and lascivious behavior. Evidence was presented at trial to show that the defendant "consumed at least twelve beers during the course of the evening"; he also used cocaine and smoked marijuana. Id. at 241, 762 A.2d at 836. The defendant's friend "testified that [the] defendant appeared intoxicated" and the defendant acknowledged at trial "that his faculties would have been fairly clouded given the amount of coke, alcohol and pot [he] had consumed over the course of the evening." Id. (brackets omitted). We emphasized that the consumption of intoxicants alone did not suffice but concluded that all of this evidence together warranted a voluntary-intoxication instruction. Id. at 244, 762 A.2d at 838.

¶ 13. We engaged in a similar analysis in State v MacFarland, 2021 VT 87, 216 Vt. 126, 275 A.3d 110. In that case, the defendant was convicted of unlawful trespass and resisting arrest. The evidence showed that the defendant "consumed nearly two liters of wine in less than an hour"; she "testified that she blacked out in the bar" where the charged acts occurred; she "did not form coherent responses to questions and directions put to her" at the time of the charged acts; "a preliminary breath test . . . indicated the presence of alcohol," and a police officer at the scene testified that the defendant's "yelling, her erratic behavior, the screaming, [her] general disorderly behavior [which...