{"id":447,"date":"2012-07-26T20:02:24","date_gmt":"2012-07-26T20:02:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=447"},"modified":"2023-01-31T21:38:18","modified_gmt":"2023-01-31T21:38:18","slug":"falsehoods-frauds-and-obstruction-of-justice","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=447","title":{"rendered":"Crimes Against Public Authority"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Escape<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR28-181.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-181.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">From Correctional Facility or Lockup<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(a)(1) (12\/05\/05)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-183.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-183.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">From Custody of Officer<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(a)(2) (12\/05\/05)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-185.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-185.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">By Failing to Return from Work Release<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(b)(1) (12\/05\/05)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-187.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-187.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">By Failing to Return from Furlough<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(b)(1)(B) (01\/31\/23)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-189. \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-189.htm\">By Failing to Return from Furlough<\/a> (with intent element for furlough imposed pursuant to 28 V.S.A. \u00a7\u00a7 723), 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(b)(3) (01\/31\/23)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>False Information to a Police Officer (FIPO)<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR28-221.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-221.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">False Information to Law Enforcement Officer<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1754 (12\/13\/10)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Hindering a Police Officer<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR28-401.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-401.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Hindering an Officer<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3001 (03\/03\/06)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Obstruction of Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR28-501.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-501.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Threatened a Witness or Juror<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3015 (04\/04\/07)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-503.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-503.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Endeavored to Obstruct Justice<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3015 (04\/04\/07)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Perjury and False Swearing<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR28-531.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-531.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Perjury<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 2901 (06\/20\/12)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-541.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-541.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">False Swearing<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 2904 (06\/20\/12)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Resisting Arrest<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR28-551.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-551.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Resisting Arrest<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3017 (03\/03\/06)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Reporter&#8217;s Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Escape from Furlough.\u00a0<\/strong> In 2019, the legislature decriminalized escape from most types of furlough. <em>See<\/em> 2019, No. 77, \u00a7 10. Then, in 2020, it recriminalized escape in certain circumstances. <em>See<\/em> 2020, No. 148; <em>see also<\/em> 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(b)(1)(B). The 2020 amendment also added an intent requirement for escape from furlough that was imposed pursuant to 28 V.S.A. \u00a7 723. S<em>ee <\/em>13 V.S.A. \u00a7\u00a01501(b)(3). The new instruction, CR28-189, incorporates an intent requirement. Where intent need not be proven, CR28-187 should be used.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Note that CR28-189 is drafted to address only those furloughs authorized pursuant to 28 V.S.A. \u00a7 723 (community supervision furlough). While 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(b)(3) purports to also add an intent requirement for escape from furloughs imposed under 28 V.S.A. \u00a7\u00a7 808(e) (medical furlough) and 808a (treatment furlough), such furloughs do not appear in 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(b)(1)(A)\u2014(D). Thus, this instruction is limited to \u00a7 723 furloughs.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Hindering an Officer.\u00a0 <\/strong>\u201cA person \u2018hinders\u2019 an officer when the person\u2019s actions illegally interfere with the officer\u2019s ability to perform duties within the scope of the officer\u2019s authority.\u201d\u00a0<u>State v. Berard<\/u>, 2019 VT 65, \u00b6 9, 211 Vt. 39 (citing <u>State v. Harris<\/u>, 152 Vt. 507, 509 (1989). The Vermont Supreme Court has \u201cconsistently defined \u2018hinder\u2019 in this context as \u2018to slow down or to make more difficult someone\u2019s progress towards accomplishing an objective; to delay, or impede or interfere with that person\u2019s progress[.]\u2019 \u201d <u>State v. Blanchard<\/u>, 2021 VT 13, \u00b6 26 (citing <u>State v. Berard<\/u>, 2019 VT 65, \u00b6 9, 211 Vt. 39;\u00a0<u>State v. Neisner<\/u>, 2010 VT 112, \u00b6 20, 189 Vt. 160;\u00a0<u>State v. Stone<\/u>, 170 Vt. 496, 499 (2000);\u00a0<u>State v. Dion<\/u>, 154 Vt. 420, 423 (1990)).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Nevertheless, it can be difficult to draw a line between what constitutes a hindrance and what does not. Several elements of the Court\u2019s discussion in <u>Blanchard<\/u> may offer some guidance. First, the Court has \u201ccast doubt on the notion that \u00a7 3001 criminalizes \u2018any unlawful action, no matter how slight or brief, that for any moment delays or interferes with the lawful execution of an officer\u2019s duties.\u2019 \u201d\u00a0<u>Blanchard<\/u>, 2021 VT 13, \u00b6 27 (quoting <u>Berard<\/u>, 2019 VT 65, \u00b6 13). This suggests that a de minimus delay or interference is not sufficient to constitute a hindrance. Second, the Court has \u201crequired that a defendant\u2019s conduct\u00a0<u>actually<\/u> hinder or impede an officer in order to qualify as hindering under \u00a7\u00a03001,\u201d <u>Id<\/u>. \u00b6 26 (emphasis in original) (citing <u>Berard<\/u>, 2019 VT 65, \u00b6 10;\u00a0<u>Neisner<\/u>, 2010 VT 112, \u00b6 14), while at the same time noting that \u201cthe very decisions that have required \u2018actual\u2019 hindrance contemplate that a defendant may \u2018actually hinder\u2019 an officer by delaying or interfering with the officer\u2019s progress.\u201d <u>Id<\/u>. (citing\u00a0<u>Berard<\/u>, 2019 VT 65, \u00b6\u00a09;\u00a0<u>Neisner<\/u>, 2010 VT 112, \u00b6 20). Finally, the Court has \u201cimplicitly recognized that the significance of the hindrance may be relevant to the question of whether a defendant \u2018actually hinders\u2019 an officer, in that the impeding convictions we have upheld involved \u2018substantial interference\u2019 or actions that \u2018significantly impeded\u2019 an officer.\u00a0Id. \u00b6\u00a027 (quoting <u>Berard<\/u>, 2019 VT 65, \u00b6 9).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the absence of objection, a failure to instruct on \u201cactual hindrance\u201d or the significance of the interference does not necessarily constitute plain error where the case does not involve \u201cmomentary and inconsequential interference with an officer\u2019s actions.\u201d <u>Blanchard<\/u>, 2021 VT 13, \u00b6 27. As a matter of practice, however, it might be advisable to instruct on such principles.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Endeavored to Obstruct Justice.<\/strong>\u00a0 The term \u201cendeavored\u201d does not require success in a defendant\u2019s attempt to obstruct justice; instead, a mere effort satisfies that element. See <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Wiley<\/span>, 2007 VT 13, \u00b6 15, 181 Vt. 300. In <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Fucci<\/span>, 2015 VT 39, \u00b6 8, the defendant argued that, under <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Wiley<\/span>, an \u201cendeavor\u201d is synonymous with an \u201cattempt.\u201d The Court clarified that it had used \u201cattempt\u201d for its ordinary connotation rather than its special legal meaning, as defined in 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 9(a). While acknowledging that other courts have held that the effort necessary to fulfill the actus reus element of the federal obstruction-of-justice statute is less than that for attempt, the Court declined to decide in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Fucci<\/span> \u201cwhether under Vermont law the steps necessary for an endeavor are the same as for an attempt.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Perjury.\u00a0 <\/strong>The model instruction contains an essential element of wilfulness.\u00a0 The requirement that the false testimony be given \u201cwilfully\u201d was included as a supplemental instruction in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Wood<\/span>, 99 Vt. 490, 498 (1926).\u00a0 The jury was told that false testimony given \u201cwilfully\u201d means that it was given knowingly and understandingly.\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>. at 498.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When a defendant is charged with perjury under 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 2901, the State must prove that he or she made the false statement in a proceeding in a court of justice.\u00a0 The model instruction also requires that the defendant made the false statement when he or she was lawfully required to depose the truth, even though it may be presumed that an oath had been administered as required by law.\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Lawrence<\/span>, 134 Vt. 373, 375 (1976) (citing <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Chamberlin<\/span>, 30 Vt. 559 (1859)).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cA false statement under oath generally may be punished as perjury only if it was material to an issue in the proceeding in which it was made.\u201d\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. LaCourse<\/span>, 168 Vt. 162, 163-64 (1998).\u00a0 The Supreme Court suggested, without deciding, that the question of materiality is an essential element of the charge that must be submitted to the jury.\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>. at 164 (citing <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">United States v. Gaudin<\/span>, 515 U.S. 506 (1995)).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Perjury must be proven \u201cby the testimony of two witnesses, or by the testimony of one witness with independent corroborating evidence.\u201d\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Tinker<\/span>, 165 Vt. 548 (1996) (quoting <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Wheel<\/span>, 155 Vt. 587, 607 (1990)).\u00a0 The testimony of one witness, corroborated by the testimony of another or by circumstances, is sufficient, \u201cif thereby the crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Woolley<\/span>, 109 Vt. 53, 57 (1937).\u00a0 \u201cThe independent corroborating evidence must be equal in weight to the testimony of another witness, and it must be, by itself, inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant.\u201d\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Tonzola<\/span>, 159 Vt. 491, 497 (1993) (quoting <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">People v. Fueston<\/span>, 717 P.2d 978, 980 (Colo. App. 1985), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 749 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1988)).\u00a0 The Vermont Supreme Court recently affirmed the requirement of corroborating evidence in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Hutchins<\/span>, 2005 VT 47, 178 Vt. 551.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Resisting Arrest<\/strong>.\u00a0The statute specifies that the attempt to prevent the arrest must take place \u201cwhen it would reasonably appear that the latter is a law enforcement officer.\u201d\u00a0 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3017.\u00a0 The instruction explains that the element is satisfied by a standard of objective reasonableness, i.e. under all the circumstances, it would have appeared to an objective reasonable observer that the person attempting to make the arrest was in fact a law enforcement officer.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The crime of resisting arrest requires proof that the defendant was attempting to prevent a \u201clawful arrest.\u201d\u00a0 Compare State v. Peters, 141 Vt. 341, 347 (1982) (explaining that for the crime of simple assault on a police officer, the state must show only that the officer was performing a lawful duty at the time of the arrest) with 13 V.S.A. \u00a7\u00a03017 (explaining that for the crime of resisting arrest, the arrest itself must be lawful).\u00a0 In some cases, the state may need to prove that a warrantless arrest was proper under Vermont Criminal Procedure Rule 3, such as by showing that the arresting officer had probable cause to make an arrest.\u00a0 In such a case, the explanation of the term \u201clawful arrest\u201d should be expanded to include a fact-specific instruction asking the jury whether or not the officer had probable cause to believe that the specified predicate acts had been committed.\u00a0 See Arthur v. State, 24 A.3d 667, 676\u201377 (Md. 2011) (explaining issue under nearly-identical state statute).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Escape CR28-181.\u00a0 From Correctional Facility or Lockup, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(a)(1) (12\/05\/05) CR28-183.\u00a0 From Custody of Officer, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(a)(2) (12\/05\/05) CR28-185.\u00a0 By Failing to Return from Work Release, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1501(b)(1) (12\/05\/05) CR28-187.\u00a0 By Failing to Return &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=447\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":436,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-447","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/447","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=447"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/447\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1686,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/447\/revisions\/1686"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}