CR05-401.\u00a0 Stipulations of Fact<\/a> (07\/28\/03)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nCircumstantial and Direct Evidence<\/p>\n
\n- CR05-051.\u00a0 Circumstantial Evidence<\/a> (11\/21\/06).\u00a0\u00a0 The committee has simplified and shortened the instruction on circumstantial evidence.\u00a0 The Supreme Court has approved similar instructions in State v. Baird<\/span>, 2006 VT 86, 180 Vt. 243.\u00a0 A full discussion of the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases is set forth in State v. Godfrey<\/span>, 2010 VT 29, \u00b6\u00b6\u00a018\u201323, 187 Vt. 495.\u00a0 This instruction is unusual in that it provides an example.\u00a0 Most judges prefer to give an example of circumstantial evidence, although some would use a different example, such as an overnight snowfall, or a substitution of deer prints for cow tracks.\u00a0 It is not necessary to use the example of cow tracks, which might not be understood by all audiences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Witness Credibility<\/p>\n
\n- CR05-061.\u00a0 Credibility of Witnesses<\/a> (06\/01\/07).\u00a0 This is a generic instruction on credibility of witnesses.\u00a0 The model does not include an instruction on reconciling testimony, although it does tell the jury that it may consider inconsistencies or discrepancies.\u00a0 There are potential problems with instructing the jury that it must try to reconcile conflicting testimony, because that might suggest that witnesses are presumed to tell the truth.\u00a0 See<\/em> State v. Percy<\/span>, 156 Vt. 468, 472-73 (1991).<\/li>\n
- CR05-161.\u00a0 Police Witnesses<\/a> (11\/09\/07).\u00a0 The emphasis of this instruction is that the jury should not give greater or lesser weight to the testimony of a witness merely<\/em> because the witness is a police officer.\u00a0 Despite this emphasis, the jury may consider the officer\u2019s testimony in light of the officer\u2019s training and experience.<\/li>\n
- CR05-201.\u00a0 Expert Witnesses<\/a> (06\/01\/07)<\/li>\n
- CR05-211.\u00a0 Expert Testimony About DNA Profiling and Psychological Testing<\/a> (01\/04\/02)<\/li>\n
- CR05-071.\u00a0 Credibility of Child Witnesses<\/a> (07\/29\/05).<\/li>\n
- CR05-081.\u00a0 Hearsay Statement\u00a0of Child Introduced under V.R.E. 804a<\/a> (07\/28\/03).\u00a0 See<\/em>, e.g.<\/em>, State v. Hoch<\/span>, 2011 VT 4, 189 Vt. 560; State v. Spooner<\/span>, 2010 VT 75, 188 Vt. 356; State v. Willis<\/span>, 2006 VT 128, 181 Vt. 170; State v. Tester<\/span>, 2006 VT 24, 179 Vt. 627 (mem.); State v. Oscarson<\/span>, 2004 VT 4, 176 Vt. 176; State v. LaBounty<\/span>, 168 Vt. 129 (1998); State v. Gallagher<\/span>, 150 Vt. 341, 348 (1988).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Impeachment and Rehabilitation of Witnesses<\/p>\n
\n- CR05-261.\u00a0 Impeachment by Bad Reputation for Telling Truth<\/a> (01\/04\/02)<\/li>\n
- CR05-251.\u00a0 Prior Inconsistent Statements<\/a> (09\/12\/03). If there is testimony about prior inconsistent statements by the witness which were not made under oath, then the out-of-court statements are introduced for impeachment only, under V.R.E. 613.\u00a0 However, if the out-of-court statements were under oath and subject to penalties of perjury, then they may be admitted as substantive evidence, under V.R.E. 801(d)(1).\u00a0 Statements are subject to perjury only if the person is lawfully required to depose the truth in a proceeding in a court of justice.\u00a0 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 2901.\u00a0 Deposition testimony may be admitted as substantive evidence if the deponent is unavailable for trial, or if the witness gives testimony at the trial that is inconsistent with his or her deposition.\u00a0 See V.R.Cr.P. 15(e).\u00a0 Prior inconsistent statements by the defendant may be admitted as substantive evidence against him or her, as admissions under V.R.E. 801(d)(2).\u00a0 The model instruction attempts to cover the various possibilities, but the court might have to tailor it to fit the specific circumstances of each case.<\/li>\n
- CR05-271.\u00a0 Prior Consistent Statements<\/a> (06\/01\/07)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Accomplices, Co-Conspirators, and Informants<\/p>\n
\n- CR05-101.\u00a0 Accomplice Testimony<\/a> (11\/09\/07)<\/li>\n
- CR05-102.\u00a0 Testimony of Accomplices<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-106.\u00a0 Uncharged or Unindicted Co-Conspirator as Government Witness<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-111.\u00a0 One Witness Testifying Under Plea Agreement<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-112.\u00a0 More than One Witness Testifying Under Plea Agreement<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-113.\u00a0 Credibility of an Informant<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-114.\u00a0 Witness was Confidential Informant Who Targeted Suspect<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-115.\u00a0 Witness was Confidential Informant Whose Deal with State is Contingent on Arrest and Conviction of this Defendant<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-121.\u00a0 Witness Testifying Under Grant of Immunity<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-131.\u00a0 Witness Testifying Under Grant of Immunity or Unsentenced Plea Agreement<\/a> (05\/10\/04)<\/li>\n
- CR05-141.\u00a0 Limited Relevance of Agreements with the State<\/a> (06\/09\/03).\u00a0 This instruction should be used only in rare circumstances where the jury is told the terms of a witness\u2019s plea agreements with the state, and where the defendant is charged with participating in the same serious crime.\u00a0 The instruction derives from State v. Marallo<\/span>, No. 1468-10-98 RdCr.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Defendant’s Statements, Testimony, and Character<\/p>\n
\n- Defendant’s\u00a0out-of-court statements<\/a><\/li>\n
- Defendant testifying or not testifying at trial<\/a><\/li>\n
- Evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt<\/a><\/li>\n
- Defendant’s prior bad acts<\/a><\/li>\n
- Defendant’s criminal convictions<\/a><\/li>\n
- Evidence concerning defendant’s character or reputation<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Other issues<\/p>\n
\n- Identification Testimony<\/a><\/li>\n
- Lost Evidence<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
General Evidentiary Issues CR05-011.\u00a0 Evidence (12\/12\/03). CR05-031.\u00a0 Statements by the Attorneys (01\/04\/02).\u00a0 The model instructions refer to the attorneys as \u201cattorneys.\u201d\u00a0 The committee concluded that \u201ccounsel\u201d is too obscure, and that \u201clawyers\u201d is too informal. CR05-041.\u00a0 Exhibits\u00a0 (01\/04\/02) CR05-091.\u00a0 Number … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":551,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-653","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/653","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=653"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/653\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1742,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/653\/revisions\/1742"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/551"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}