Supreme Court of Vermont
The State of Vermont v. Susan Center and W. H. H. Center
November 15, 186235 Vt. 378
Summary
The court held that the victim's statements were inadmissible as dying declarations because the evidence did not establish that she made them under a full and firm belief of impending death, and because the statements were too vague to identify the cause and circumstances of her death. It also held that the overheard conversation between the respondents was not a protected confidential communication and approved the manslaughter instruction concerning negligent conduct during an unlawful act. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Holding
- Admissibility of the declarations made six days before death. Dying declarations are admissible only when made under the declarant's full and firm belief of near and approaching death. The interval between the declaration and death is not independently disqualifying, but the statements here were inadmissible because the declarant's expression of hope or expectation of recovery, together with the medical and surrounding circumstances, did not establish the required belief.
- Specificity required for dying declarations. Dying declarations must distinctly identify the cause of death and the circumstances producing and attending it. Vague or indefinite statements that require inference or conjecture to connect them to a wrongful act are inadmissible.
- Confidentiality of the overheard conversation. A conversation between the respondents overheard by a witness in an adjoining room was not a confidential communication excluded by the law of evidence.
- Manslaughter instruction based on negligence during an unlawful act. The trial court correctly instructed that negligent conduct causing death while the respondents were engaged in an unlawful and immoral act could support a manslaughter conviction.