State of Vermont v. Mitchell Maldonado, Jr.

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 24-AP-125
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

MARCH TERM, 2025

State of Vermont v. Mitchell Maldonado, Jr.* } APPEALED FROM:
}
} Superior Court, Bennington Unit,
} Criminal Division
} CASE NO. 21-CR-03948
Trial Judge: Kerry Ann McDonald-Cady

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Defendant Mitchell Maldonado, Jr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a
new trial. We affirm.

Defendant was charged with burglary into an occupied dwelling and simple assault based
on allegations that he went to the apartment of the victim, Joseph Hewson, kicked in the door,
and repeatedly punched the victim in front of the victim’s girlfriend and their one-year-old child.

At trial, the State presented a video recording that showed a man kicking in the door of
the apartment while a male neighbor and another individual stood nearby. The male neighbor
identified the person kicking the door as defendant. A second neighbor testified that she heard a
commotion and heard a child “scream bloody murder.” She went outside her apartment and saw
defendant and another person leave the victim’s apartment.

The victim’s girlfriend testified that on the night in question, she was sitting on the couch
in the victim’s apartment and her daughter was near the door. Defendant kicked in the door,
which hit the child. Defendant then “socked [the victim] down on the ground, started punching
him on the head.” Defendant hit the victim three or four times, leaving him “pretty bloody.”
Another person pulled defendant off the victim and defendant exited the apartment.

The victim testified that he had an argument earlier that day with a neighbor, who “called
[defendant] in.” The neighbor’s daughter knocked on the victim’s door and told him to come out
because they were going to fight. Defendant then kicked in the door and punched the victim in
the head five or six times.

Defendant did not present any testimony or evidence. He moved for judgment of
acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he was the
person who kicked the door open. The court denied the motion. The jury found defendant guilty
of both charges.

Defendant filed a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial, repeating his
claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was the person who kicked the
door. While that motion was pending, defendant filed a supplemental memorandum claiming
that a new trial was necessary because the victim had recently recanted his trial testimony in a
written statement. That statement, entitled “Motion to Dismiss” and signed by the victim and a
corrections officer, was subsequently filed with the court. It asserted that the victim was
pressured and paid $40 by the State to lie on the stand, that none of what he said was true, and
that he was under the influence of heroin when he testified.

Following a hearing in November 2023, the court denied defendant’s first motion for
judgment of acquittal or a new trial, concluding that the evidence presented by the State was
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. It granted defendant additional time to file a separate
motion for a new trial based on the victim’s alleged statement.

Defendant filed his second motion for a new trial in December 2023. He argued that the
victim’s written statement constituted newly discovered evidence that would probably change
the jury’s verdict. He asked the court to set a hearing for the victim to provide testimony. The
State opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict even
without the victim’s testimony. The State further asserted that the victim had told his girlfriend
and law enforcement that the alleged recantation was coerced through threats of violence. The
court set the matter for a one-hour hearing in January 2024.

A week before the hearing, defendant moved for the court to consider testimony from
four individuals to whom the victim allegedly disclosed that he had lied at trial. The court
denied defendant’s motion, explaining that defendant had not explained how such testimony was
admissible. It further reasoned that the matter had already been scheduled for a one-hour hearing
based on defendant’s original motion, which did not mention the proposed witnesses. Finally, it
noted that the victim was only one of several witnesses who identified defendant as the
perpetrator of the burglary and assault. Defendant moved for reconsideration, arguing that the
witnesses were necessary to rebut the State’s argument that he had coerced the victim into
recanting. The court denied the motion.

At the January 2024 hearing, the victim testified that in November 2023, he was
incarcerated on unrelated charges at the same facility as defendant. The victim testified that
defendant wrote the recantation and had the victim sign it. At defendant’s request, the victim
then asked a corrections officer to sign the document. The victim testified that he did not read
the document, but defendant told him what it was. The corrections officer testified that the
victim signed the document in front of him. The officer was not acting as a notary and did not
administer an oath to the victim. He did not ask the victim to confirm the content of the
statement, and the victim did not tell him who prepared the statement.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial,
explaining that it was not reasonably satisfied that the victim’s trial testimony was false or that
the jury would have reached a different verdict without his testimony. It subsequently sentenced
defendant to serve thirteen-to-twenty years. This appeal followed.

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of
the four witnesses from the hearing on his second motion for a new trial. He argues that their
testimony corroborated the victim’s written statement and could have persuaded the court that

2
the victim lied at trial, and that without the victim’s testimony the jury probably would have
reached a different conclusion.

We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion. When a defendant moves for
new trial based on the alleged recantation of a material witness, the court is required to grant a
new trial if:

(1) the court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given
by a material witness is false; (2) without that testimony the jury
probably would have reached a different conclusion; and (3) the
party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false
testimony was given or did not know of its falsity until after the
trial.

State v. Robillard, 146 Vt. 623, 629 (1986). The second element “is especially difficult for a
defendant to show because it requires that a new result is probable, not that it is simply possible.”
State v. Charbonneau, 2011 VT 57, ¶ 17, 190 Vt. 81.

Accepting for purposes of argument that the proffered hearsay testimony from the four
witnesses was admissible and might have persuaded the trial court that the victim lied at trial,
defendant still had to show that without [the victim’s] testimony, “the jury probably would have
reached a different conclusion.” Robillard, 146 Vt. at 629 (emphasis omitted). The proposed
testimony did not address this factor; it was essentially cumulative of the victim’s testimony and
the written statement. The victim was only one of several witnesses who identified defendant as
the perpetrator of the burglary and assault. Two neighbors identified defendant as the person
who kicked in the victim’s door based on their own observations, which were corroborated by
the video recording. The victim’s girlfriend testified that defendant kicked down the door and
attacked the victim, leaving him bloody. Thus, even without the victim’s testimony, there was
ample evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
was the perpetrator of the burglary and the assault. Under these circumstances, the court did not
abuse its discretion in excluding the witnesses or denying the motion for a new trial. See
Charbonneau, 2011 VT 57, ¶ 21 (affirming trial court’s denial of motion for new trial where,
even assuming new evidence was credible, substantial other evidence supported jury verdict).

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

3