Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the trial court’s requirement that he post a secured appearance bond in the amount of $25,000 with a ten percent deposit to be paid to the court. Defendant was being held for lack of bail, and he argued that the amount set by the trial court was excessive. Although a court must consider a defendant’s financial resources in determining conditions of release, the Supreme Court concluded that neither the U.S. nor Vermont Constitution nor the applicable Vermont statutes required trial courts to find that a defendant has a present ability to raise bail in the amount set by the court. "Although courts must consider a defendant’s financial resources when they set bail, courts may set bail at a level that a particular defendant cannot secure. In setting bail, courts must always be guided by the goal of securing a defendant’s appearance at trial, and should not set bail at an unattainable level for the purpose of detaining a defendant rather than assuring the defendant’s appearance." View "Vermont v. Pratt" on Justia Law

The patient in this case, G.G., appealed a trial court’s denial of requests by him and his counsel to let him represent himself in his mental-health proceedings and from the court’s subsequent orders of continued treatment and involuntary medication. The Vermont Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precluded G.G. from proceeding without representation in his involuntary medication and involuntary commitment hearings, given the State’s exceedingly strong interest in an accurate determination on the merits of those hearings. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of G.G.’s motion to waive counsel and his attorney’s motion to withdraw. Additionally, the Court affirmed the decisions on the merits of G.G.’s continued treatment and involuntary medication orders. View "In re G.G." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated murder and two counts of murder in the second degree in the deaths of two men. Plaintiff was the estate of one of the deceased men, which brought a wrongful death action on behalf of the next of kin. In its filing, plaintiff obtained an attachment freezing defendant’s assets, including the retainer she provided for her criminal defense. In an interlocutory appeal, the issue presented for the Supreme Court’s review was whether the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel was violated when the plaintiff in a civil wrongful death action attaches funds the defendant intends to use for her legal defense to homicide charges stemming from the death at issue in the civil case. Defendant appealed a trial court decision permitting such an attachment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Estate of Jamis Lott v. O'Neill" on Justia Law

In September 2014, defendant Lamar Scales was tried and convicted of three felony counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child that occurred between June 1, 2004 and June 1, 2006. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting consciousness-of-guilt evidence and then failing to give a limiting instruction on the use of that evidence and that the prosecutor's closing argument violated the "golden rule" by asking the jurors to put themselves in the position of a party - here, the purported victim. Vermont has recognized the impropriety of an appeal to jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim: "A golden rule argument-which asks ‘jurors to place themselves in the position of a party'-is ‘universally condemned' because it encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on evidence." The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, finding the prosecutor's statements "exceeded the bounds of fair and temperate discussion, circumscribed by the evidence and inferences properly drawn therefrom." View "Vermont v. Scales" on Justia Law

Petitioners Representative Donald Turner, Jr. and Senator Joseph Benning, sought to enjoin respondent Governor Peter Shumlin (whose last day in office was January 5, 2017), from appointing a successor to the office held by Associate Justice John Dooley, whose term was set to expire April 1, 2017. Justice Dooley did not file a declaration with the Office of the Secretary of State indicating that he would seek retention for another term beyond March 31, 2017, the last day of his then-current six-year term. On December 21, 2016, Representative Turner filed a petition for quo warranto contesting the Governor's authority to appoint Justice Dooley's successor, asserting that although the Vermont Constitution authorized the Governor to fill a vacancy on the Court, no vacancy would exist until Justice Dooley left office nearly three months after Governor Shumlin left his office. The Supreme Court concluded that the Vermont Constitution did not authorize the Governor to appoint an Associate Justice in anticipation of a vacancy that was not expected to occur until the expiration of the justice's term of office, which would occur months after the Governor left office. "In so holding, we emphasize that our decision today rests entirely upon the meaning and purpose of the Vermont Constitution. We reach our decision having in mind the overarching principles of our democracy: the integrity of our governing institutions and the people's confidence in them. The particular identity of the parties or potential nominees to the Office of Associate Justice have no bearing on our decision. Our sole responsibility in this, as in any, case is to apply the law evenhandedly, regardless of the identity of the litigants, the sensitivity of the issues, or the passing political interests of the moment." View "Turner v. Shumlin" on Justia Law

The superior court certified a question of law for the Vermont Supreme Court’s review in connection with the prosecution of defendant Geoffrey King. Specifically, the court and parties asked the Supreme Court to determine what legal standard the superior court should apply to determine whether the State’s approximately three-year delay in bringing charges against defendant violated defendant’s due process rights under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions. Defendant was accused of sexual assault. The Supreme Court concluded that, to establish the State’s pre-accusation delay violated a defendant’s due process rights under either the U.S. Constitution or the Vermont Constitution, the defendant had to demonstrate actual substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or to advance some other impermissible purpose that violates fundamental conceptions of justice. Because defendant failed to meet either prong of this standard, the Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. View "Vermont v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant Tristan Cameron appealed his conviction for grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle resulting in the death of a passenger. He argued on appeal that there was not enough evidence to convict him, that testimony regarding his marijuana use should have been excluded, that prejudicial juror discussions occurred, and that the trial court’s instruction to the jury lowered the standard of proof required for conviction. Because the Vermont Supreme Court found that the State presented enough evidence to create a question for the jury, the Court affirmed on the first issue. But because, absent expert testimony, the jury was left to speculate that the State’s evidence provided the necessary link between defendant’s marijuana use and the grossly negligent operation charge, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the second issue. View "Vermont v. Cameron" on Justia Law

Eastern Bail Bond Agency, Inc., which had posted a surety bond for defendant Joshua Anderson, appealed the trial court's forfeiture of bail and subsequent denials of Eastern's motions to vacate and to reconsider. On appeal, Eastern raised several arguments concerning the propriety of the order under the circumstances of the case. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court failed to properly exercise its discretion in forfeiting bail without resolving Eastern's factual allegations. The Court therefore reversed and remanded. View "Vermont v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Petitioner David Barron appealed a superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections, upholding his prison disciplinary conviction for threatening another person. He argued the DOC: (1) failed to prove he had the ability and opportunity to carry out his threat as required by DOC policy for a prison disciplinary conviction; and (2) failed to hold his hearing within the time allowed by the policy. Finding no reversible error in the superior court’s order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Barron v. Menard" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Rondeau appealed after he was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault, which were based on an information citing statutes not yet in effect at the time of the alleged criminal acts. The issues this case presented for the Vermont Supreme Court’s review were: (1) whether defendant’s convictions under the statutes listed in the information violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) whether the sentencing court could, post-verdict and sua sponte, amend the information to list statutes in effect when the alleged acts occurred; and (3) whether the original unamended information provided sufficient notice to sustain defendant’s convictions under the statutes in effect when defendant’s alleged criminal conduct occurred. Because the Court concluded defendant’s convictions under the listed statutes violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, that the sentencing court lacked the authority to sua sponte amend the information after trial, and that the original, unamended charging documents provided defendant with insufficient notice of the charges, the Court vacated defendant’s convictions. View "Vermont v. Rondeau" on Justia Law