In 2001, defendant Jonathan Villeneuve pleaded guilty to lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He appealed the denial of his motion to seal the record of his conviction on the ground that the underlying conduct took place prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one. The State conceded that the trial court erred in denying the application based on its conclusion that a conviction for a listed crime as defined in 13 V.S.A. 5301 was not eligible for sealing under the language of 33 V.S.A. 5119(g)(2). Based on the plain language of section 5119(g)(2), the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s denial was in error. In considering a petition to seal, the trial court must “determine that defendant committed the crime before turning twenty-one years old, that two years have elapsed since defendant’s final discharge, and that defendant has been rehabilitated.” Because the trial court failed to make findings as to whether defendant has been rehabilitated, the Court reversed and remanded for consideration of that issue. View "Vermont v. Villeneuve" on Justia Law

Defendant Glen Haskins, Jr. was tried for attempted murder. At trial, he theorized that a group of late-night club-goers with whom he was partying conspired to frame him for a stabbing that occurred in downtown Burlington shortly after two o’clock in the morning of January 15, 2012. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by excluding exculpatory testimony and by giving misleading jury instructions regarding reasonable doubt and permissive inferences. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed on all issues and upheld defendant’s conviction. View "Vermont v. Haskins, Jr." on Justia Law

Taxpayer C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. disputed sales tax assessed by the Vermont Department of Taxes on the purchase of reusable fiberglass freezer tubs used in the transport of perishable items, as well as the Department’s refusal to refund sales tax paid on diesel fuel used to power refrigeration systems mounted on taxpayer’s tractor trailers. Taxpayer also contested the penalty assessed by the Commissioner of the Department of Taxes, arguing that it was unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Taxes. View "C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Dept. of Taxes" on Justia Law

Mother appealed the family court’s order adjudicating her children A.S. and K.S. as children in need of care or supervision (CHINS). On appeal, mother argued that the court erred in looking exclusively at the facts that existed at the time the CHINS petition was filed and ignoring evidence of the changed circumstances at the time of the evidentiary hearing. Finding no reversible error after review of this matter, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re A.S. and K.S." on Justia Law

J.W. was adjudged child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) because his mother would not adequately protect J.W. from father if the child was returned to mother’s care. Mother did not appeal this adjudication, rather father appealed, arguing that the court “usurped the executive role of investigation and prosecution” by taking judicial notice of his criminal record and filings related to a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order that mother obtained against him. He argued that the court’s findings did not support its conclusion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re J.W." on Justia Law

Employer Entergy Corporation challenged the denial of its request for a credit against future workers’ compensation benefits owed to claimant Sharon Conant. Employer argued on appeal that, given the payments it made to claimant under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, as well as the retroactive temporary total disability (TTD) payments it was ordered to make, claimant received more money as wage replacement than she was owed. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, and reversed the Commissioner of the Department of Labor’s decision on this point. View "Conant v. Entergy Corporation" on Justia Law

The altercation leading to defendant’s conviction occurred on July 29, 2014, at a Middlebury residential facility for persons with major mental illnesses. In a sworn statement admitted without objection, the complainant claimed that defendant initiated the altercation by pointing his finger at the complainant. The complainant responded by kicking defendant’s hand twice and telling defendant that he “needed a kick in the ass.” Suddenly, the complainant experienced blurred vision, pressure, and heat on the left side of his face. Although he initially did not know what had happened, after he saw defendant talking to him, he concluded that defendant had hit him. Defendant appealed his conviction for simple assault, arguing that the trial court erred by instructing the jury to consider simple assault as a lesser-included offense of domestic assault, the crime for which he was charged. Specifically, defendant contended: (1) that, as instructed to the jury, simple assault was not a lesser-included offense of domestic assault; and (2) that the court could not instruct the jury to consider a lesser-included offense over the defendant’s objection. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Bean" on Justia Law

Petitioner D.C. appealed the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging that the change-of-plea hearing that preceded his adjudication of juvenile delinquency was constitutionally inadequate. The superior court held that the PCR statute did not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings and that the only remedy available to petitioner was through 33 V.S.A. 5113 and Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but that route was foreclosed because petitioner’s claim was untimely raised. On appeal, petitioner argued that the case was not moot, despite the fact he was over the age of majority at the time of his appeal (and no longer committed to state custody), and that the PCR statutes permitted juveniles to collaterally attack their adjudications. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed, reversed the superior court’s order dismissing petitioner’s PCR complaint, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re D.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-lender Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as trustee) appealed a superior court decision to grant defendant-borrower Kevin Pinette's motion to dismiss. The lender tried to foreclose on property of Pinette, but the superior court dismissed its claims on foreclosure, the unpaid balance on a promissory note, and a deficiency judgment on the ground that they were barred by claim preclusion, as lender had previously instituted an identical action against borrower in 2013, which had been dismissed for failure to prosecute. On appeal, the lender argued that because the 2013 action did not actually adjudge the enforceability of the note and mortgage, the dismissal did not have preclusive effect. Further, lender urged the Vermont Supreme Court to hold that in the mortgage foreclosure context, dismissals with prejudice did not bar subsequent actions based upon new defaults occurring after dismissal of the prior action. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Deutsche Bank v. Pinette" on Justia Law

The State appealed mental health orders involving D.H. and B.C. The State's Attorney contended it was entitled to a hearing on its motions for the continued treatment at the expiration of the mental health orders at issue; both D.H. and B.C. had been charged with criminal offenses. The criminal division found the State’s Attorney had no standing to seek continued treatment at the expiration of a mental health treatment order and denied the State’s motion. Finding no reversible error in the orders, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. B.C." on Justia Law