Supreme Court of Vermont
State of Vermont v. Shawn Kelley
May 20, 2016202 Vt. 174
Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the domestic‑assault conviction, holding that the 911 recording was properly authenticated and admissible as an excited utterance, that the complainant’s prior statements to an officer were admissible for impeachment and not hearsay, that the evidence was sufficient to deny a judgment of acquittal, and that the prosecutor’s closing remarks did not rise to the level of plain error. The court relied on established authentication standards, the excited‑utterance exception, and the limited scope of impeachment rules.
Holding
- Whether the 911 recording was properly authenticated and admissible as an excited utterance and did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The trial court did not abuse its discretion; the recording was properly authenticated and fits within the excited‑utterance exception, and no Confrontation‑Clause violation occurred.
- Whether the complainant’s prior statements to the second officer were hearsay or admissible for impeachment. The statements were admissible for impeachment, not hearsay, and any procedural defects did not rise to plain error.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal under V.R.Cr.P. 29. The denial was proper; the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the prosecutor’s closing‑argument statements improperly characterized the evidence and constituted plain error. No plain error occurred; the prosecutor’s remarks were within the limits of fair discussion and did not suggest the jury treat impeachment evidence as substantive proof.
Docket 2014-440
Cited authorities
- Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a)
- Vermont Rule of Evidence 901(b)
- Vermont Rule of Evidence 613(b)
- Rule 613(b)
- Rule 613(b)
- Rule 613(b)
- Rule 613(b)
- Rule 613(b)