State v. Curtis, 157 Vt. 629, 603 A.2d 356 (1991)

Facts

  • Vermont game wardens received complaints of illegal deer hunting out of season and placed a lifelike deer decoy about 83 feet from a road, with reflective tape on its eyes to simulate a live deer.
  • During the closed season, Benny Curtis drove by in a truck, shined a bright light toward the decoy, and fired a rifle shot that damaged one of the decoy’s eyes.
  • Curtis was charged with attempting to take a wild deer out of season under Vermont law (10 V.S.A. § 4745) and was convicted by a jury of attempt.
  • Curtis appealed, arguing (1) he could not be guilty of attempt because the object was a decoy, (2) the jury should have been instructed on entrapment, and (3) the wardens’ conduct violated internal Fish and Wildlife guidelines.

Issues

  1. Whether “legal impossibility” precludes attempt liability when the defendant shoots at a deer decoy believing it to be a live deer during closed season.
  2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury on entrapment.
  3. Whether alleged violations of Fish and Wildlife Department decoy-use guidelines invalidate the conviction.

Decision

  • The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
  • The court held that legal impossibility did not bar attempt liability where the defendant intended to take a deer out of season and took substantial steps toward that result, even though the target was a decoy.
  • The court held the entrapment-instruction claim was waived because Curtis did not request the instruction or timely object to the charge.
  • The court held that any deviation from internal agency guidelines did not affect the validity of the criminal conviction.
  • Attempt liability may be established by culpable intent plus conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the offense.
  • A defendant’s mistaken belief about circumstances (that would make the conduct criminal if true) does not defeat attempt liability merely because completion was impossible due to unknown facts (e.g., a decoy).
  • Claims of instructional error generally must be preserved by requesting the instruction and timely objecting to the jury charge.
  • Internal law-enforcement or agency guidelines do not, without more, create enforceable limits that invalidate an otherwise lawful prosecution and conviction.

Conclusion

The court upheld Curtis’s conviction for attempted out-of-season deer taking, rejecting legal impossibility where Curtis believed he was shooting a live deer and acted toward that end; it also refused to consider entrapment due to lack of preservation and found alleged guideline violations irrelevant to the conviction’s validity.