Defendant Tiffanie Felix appealed her conviction for the sale or delivery of 200 milligrams or more of heroin following a jury trial. She argued that the trial court erred in refusing to allow her to impeach the credibility of the State’s key witness in various ways, depriving defendant of a fair trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed and remanded this case for a new trial. View "Vermont v. Felix" on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick Bostwick was convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and sentenced to three to fifteen years, all suspended but six months. Defendant's probation order contained "special sex offender conditions": "You will not live in an apartment complex that allows children, in neighborhoods with large numbers of children, or in neighborhoods near parks, schools, playgrounds, etc, unless directed otherwise by your Supervising Officer"; and "You shall reside where your Supervising Officer directs. You shall not change your residence without the prior written permission of your Supervising Officer." While defendant was still incarcerated, the State filed a probation violation complaint, claiming that defendant had violated the condition stating: "You shall reside where your Supervising Officer directs." The State claimed that defendant had violated this condition because he did not submit a residence for his probation officer's approval prior to his release and therefore he would be homeless upon his release. The court dismissed the complaint for "impossibility of performance." Defendant was subsequently released and, with approval from his probation officer, resided at a few temporary addresses in succession. In its analysis, the court found that defendant did not look for housing for approximately one month, and that defendant "certainly should have known that abandoning his efforts to find housing for several days . . . was not in compliance with his obligations under the terms of his probation." Defendant argued that the requirements that he make housing search calls every day and find housing by a certain date were not part of his court-ordered probation conditions. Therefore, defendant claimed that his probation officer lacked authority to impose those requirements on him and that defendant had no notice of the consequences of failing to fulfill those requirements. Defendant further argued that he had no meaningful opportunity to find housing, that it was in fact impossible for him to find housing, and that his failure to find housing was not willful. Because the Supreme Court agreed with defendant that he did not violate any of his court-ordered conditions of release, it did not reach the remainder of his other arguments made on appeal. The Court held that defendant's conduct was not inconsistent with the plain language of his probation conditions, and reversed. View "Vermont v. Bostwick" on Justia Law

Defendant Owen Cornell was convicted by jury of lewd and lascivious conduct with a twelve-year-old child. Defendant argued on appeal: (1) that the boilerplate "sex offender conditions" imposed by the trial court were not sufficiently individualized to comply with statutory sentencing requirements; (2) that the vague and ambiguous wording of some of the conditions violated defendant’s due process rights and impermissibly delegated the court’s authority to his probation officer; (3) and that several of the conditions were unduly restrictive and invasive in violation of defendant’s substantive due process rights. Defendant raised these issues in response to a limited remand from the Supreme Court, but the trial court did not address them because its authority on remand, as requested by the parties, was limited to clarifying the conditions it had already imposed. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s September 2013 entry order extending the trial court’s authority on remand to resolve defendant’s challenges, the case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings on defendant’s motion to reconsider the probation conditions. View "Vermont v. Cornell" on Justia Law

Taxpayer Ugo Quazzo appealed a superior court decision to uphold a determination by the Commissioner of Taxes that he failed to prove a change of domicile for purposes of obtaining an income-sensitive homestead property tax adjustment on his Vermont residence for the years 2007 through 2009. He argued that the Commissioner erred in treating this case as one involving a change of domicile, rather than maintenance of domicile, so that taxpayer had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had changed domicile to Vermont, even though he had declared (and the Department of Taxes did not challenge) his Vermont domicile years earlier. He also argued that the Commissioner’s findings are insufficient to support her conclusions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Quazzo v. Department of Taxes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company insured the vehicle involved in the accident at issue in this case. Given the number of victims, the policy’s liability coverage did not fully compensate at least one of the injured passengers. The parties disputed whether the injured passenger was therefore entitled to UIM benefits under Progressive’s policy. Progressive argued that coverage was barred by certain exclusions in its policy. The trial court found Progressive’s exclusions unenforceable as inconsistent with the definition of an "underinsured vehicle" set forth in 23 V.S.A. 941(f). Progressive appealed, arguing that its exclusions should be enforced, and that it should not have to provide both liability and UIM benefits to the injured passenger. The Supreme Court agreed with Progressive after its review of the case, and therefore, reversed the trial court’s decision. View "Progressive Casuality Insurance Co. v. MMG Insurnace Co." on Justia Law

The State of Vermont appealed the superior court’s reversal of the Vermont Parole Board’s decision to revoke Edwin Rodriguez’s parole. On appeal, the State argued: (1) the court erred in weighing the evidence and assessing witness credibility when reviewing the parole board’s decision, and (2) erred in concluding that the parole violation was not established by a preponderance of the evidence. After review of the Parole Board record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the decision. View "Rodriguez v. Vermont Parole Board" on Justia Law

The mother in this case appealed the family division's decision to place sole legal parental rights and responsibilities for the parties' two daughters with the father. She also appealed the family division's award of a share of the equity in the marital home to father. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the family division's decision. View "Paine v. Buffa" on Justia Law

"At its heart, the present controversy is about noise - specifically, airport-generated noise and its effects on immediate neighbors." Airport neighbor, George Maille, appealed the Superior Court, Environmental Division's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees City of Burlington and City of South Burlington. The court upheld the South Burlington Zoning Administrative Office's issuance of fifty-four zoning permits to the City of Burlington and Burlington International Airport (BTV) and concluded that applicants were not required to submit a site plan for zoning board approval. Each permit allowed the BTV to demolish, remove, and fill in the cellar hole of a vacant structure on BTV-owned property. Maille contended that the environmental court erred in concluding that site plan review of the applications was not required under the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Although the Supreme Court disagreed with part of the environmental court’s reasoning, it ultimately affirmed its holding that site plan review was not required for the removal of the structures and the placement of fill in the structures' respective cellar holes. View "In re Burlington Airport Permit" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a restitution order requiring him to pay $2,427.36 for damage to a car. On appeal, he argued: (1) the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the victim’s loss was uninsured; (2) the court failed to make a specific finding that the damage was uninsured; (3) the court erred in admitting and using a repair estimate because it was hearsay; and (4) the court erred in calculating the amount of restitution by using the cost of repair rather than the difference in fair market value before and after the accident. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order. View "Vermont v. Morse" on Justia Law

Applicant Alan Bjerke appealed the Environmental Division's affirmance of the Burlington Development Review Board's decision to deny his application for a zoning permit to alter the exterior of his house. Applicant argued that his zoning permit application was "deemed approved" because the municipal zoning administrator did not act upon it within thirty days. Furthermore, he claimed the Environmental Division erred by admitting the municipal zoning ordinance into evidence after trial and putting the burden of proof of compliance with that ordinance on applicant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the permit denial.View "In re Bjerke Zoning Permit Denial" on Justia Law