Not Inconsistent

A full basket.

State v. Diaz, 2025 VT 58

This week’s case is sort of interesting. It’s really about two things: first, whether a judgment of acquittal should have been granted (SCOV says no) and second, whether an acquittal on one charge was necessarily inconsistent with a conviction on a second charge (SCOV also says no).

 

Mr. Damien Diaz was charged with a whole basket of things: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, grand larceny, unlawful mischief, carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon while committing a felony, and assault and robbery. A charge of larceny from a person was also added. This is a whole lot of stuff going on.

 

The facts were pretty simple. Some teenaged kids were all at a house together. One kid, the complainant, walked out of the house with a backpack containing some belongings. He walked over his friend’s car; the friend happened to be dating Mr. Diaz. Mr. Diaz came running at him. The complainant thought he saw a knife in Mr. Diaz’s shirt. The complainant ran away, dropped his belongings, and ran back into the house where he was. Mr. Diaz then started destroying some of Mr. Diaz’s belongings. He took some of the other belongings.

 

He had a trial. At the close of the state’s case he moved for judgment of acquittal on most of the charges. It was granted with respect to grand larceny because the state didn’t prove the amount of the goods stolen. He was acquitted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and of carrying a dangerous weapon while committing a felony. He was convicted of unlawful mischief, larceny from the person, and assault and robbery.

 

He appeals, saying, hold the phone – how was I acquitted of the weapons-related offenses but convicted of assault and robbery? The state didn’t prove the actual existence of a knife. He argued the court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal, and that it was plain error that his motion was denied. 

 

SCOV says, “nice try but no.” See, there’s no element requiring a weapon in an assault and robbery case. The fact that he menaced the complainant by chasing him was enough. That created fear in the complainant; he ran away and dropped his belongings so he could get back in the house. And Mr. Diaz’s actions of running full speed at the complainant and then destroying his belongings certainly suggested he meant to make the complainant feel fear of harm. 

 

Mr. Diaz also argued this wasn’t larceny from the person, since the complainant dropped his belongings. SCOV again says no. He was holding them and would have kept holding them had Mr. Diaz not chased and menaced him. 

 

Moving on to the notion of inconsistent verdicts, he argued that a conviction for assault and robbery was inconsistent with acquittals for aggravated assault with a weapon and carrying a weapon while committing a felony. SCOV repeats that the state didn’t actually have to prove Mr. Diaz had a weapon for the assault and robbery conviction, it just had to prove his actions were sufficient to create fear in the complainant. SCOV says disturbing a jury verdict must rise to the level of the clearly erroneous standard, and this wasn't it.