Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2005, petitioner lived with his girlfriend (witness) and their two young children. Their infant daughter was hospitalized for symptoms and injuries consistent with head trauma. A year later, petitioner was charged with two counts of first-degree aggravated domestic assault for allegedly causing the child's injuries. Petitioner appealed the superior court's order granting summary judgment to the State and dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Petitioner was assigned counsel; trial was scheduled for February 2007. As a defense strategy, counsel wanted to highlight that other people had access to the child and could have injured her. In particular, counsel contemplated that if the witness claimed her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when called to testify at trial, the jury might infer that she was involved in the crime and therefore reasonably doubt petitioner's participation. Counsel's affidavit acknowledges that the strategy was his idea, stating that it "came to [him]" during a meeting with witness and petitioner. Petitioner's counsel discussed the strategy at that meeting with both the witness and petitioner. Petitioner's counsel also advised witness to discuss the proposed tactic with her own counsel. The witness did consult with an attorney and ultimately decided not to claim her Fifth Amendment privilege at trial. Instead, she testified as a prosecution witness that petitioner had encouraged her to invoke the Fifth Amendment when testifying. Petitioner's counsel objected to this testimony based on attorney-client privilege. After his objection was denied, Petitioner's counsel failed to address the matter on cross-examination or in his closing argument. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that the PCR court disregarded material disputed facts on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and prematurely concluded that, as a matter of law, counsel's performance was professionally reasonable and did not prejudice the outcome of petitioner's trial. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court found that the trial court record was inadequate to determine on summary judgment whether counsel reasonably anticipated the consequences of suggesting the risky defense strategy, including sufficiently informing petitioner about its risks; and, if he did not, whether petitioner's defense was therefore prejudiced. The Court reversed the PCR court's grant of summary judgment to the State and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "In re Lowry" on Justia Law

Petitioner Edwin Towne appealed the trial court's denial of his request for post-conviction DNA testing under Vermont's Innocence Protection Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial because the court correctly concluded that the results of the requested test would not have created a "reasonable probability" of a different outcome at trial. View "In re Towne" on Justia Law

Defendant was driving along a gravel country road at night in a scarcely populated area. A state trooper was traveling in the opposite direction and saw defendant's approaching vehicle. Defendant was not speeding or driving erratically, and his vehicle did not display any equipment defects or violations. The trooper decided to turn his cruiser around and follow defendant for a while. Eventually, defendant pulled his car to the right side of the road and stopped with the engine and lights on. There were no businesses, homes, or other structures in the area that would explain why defendant stopped his car there.  The trooper, who had been following at a distance of two or three car-lengths behind the car, also pulled over and stopped. The trooper then waited to see what the car or its driver would do next, but nothing immediate happened. After about thirty seconds, the trooper decided to turn on his blue lights. He testified that he thought it was "unusual" for the car to stop where it did, and decided that he should approach defendant's car to make sure defendant was "alright." While speaking with defendant, the trooper made observations that eventually led to defendant's arrest for suspected driving under the influence. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the motor-vehicle stop was justified by the community caretaking doctrine. Defendant contended that it was not and argued that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the evidentiary fruits of the stop. The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's decision and reversed. View "Vermont v. Button" on Justia Law

Appellant Green Mountain Future (GMF) appealed the grant of summary judgment, which found that it was a political action committee (PAC) and violated a number of provisions of the Vermont campaign finance laws. GMF argued the trial court erred in not applying a narrowing construction created by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Buckley v. Valeo," (424 U.S. 1 (1976)), to the definition of a PAC under Vermont campaign finance laws, and that without that construction the registration and disclosure laws are unconstitutional under the overbreadth doctrine of the First Amendment and the vagueness doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State cross-appealed the $10,000 civil penalty assigned by the trial court, asserting that that court abused its discretion by misapplying certain factors and imposing a penalty for only one of GMF's violations. This case largely turned on the scope and continuing vitality of the "magic words" that GMF argued were required by "Buckley." GMF argued that its advertisements were purely issue advocacy and did not seek to affect the outcome of an election, in this case for Governor of Vermont. The State argued that GMF's advertisements were transparently employed to defeat the candidacy of Brian Dubie for Governor, although they did not state so explicitly. The Supreme Court held that the "magic words" were not required to make the applicable campaign finance statute constitutional. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision on summary judgment and the civil penalty, except that it remanded for reconsideration of the penalty for the violation of the identification requirement. View "Vermont v. Green Mountain Future" on Justia Law

Defendant acting pro se appealed a final relief-from-abuse order issued by the family division of the superior court. He raised numerous claims on appeal, including allegations that he was not properly served with the temporary order or the final order. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rollo v. Cameron" on Justia Law

Both petitioner and the State appealed two March 2012 orders in which the superior court vacated petitioner’s aggravated stalking conviction after granting each party summary judgment on different aspects of petitioner's post-conviction relief petition. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decisions granting petitioner summary judgment, reinstated the aggravated stalking conviction, affirmed the court’s grant of summary judgment to the State on petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and dismissed petitioner’s PCR petition. View "In re Hoch" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether Vermont’s nominating petition process for independent candidates for President of the United States unduly burdened the rights of such candidates and their supporters under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  Upon review, the Court concluded that the trial court correctly held that it does and affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiffs Ross “Rocky” Anderson, an independent candidate for President in the 2012 election and his campaign coordinator, plaintiff Benjamin Eastwood. Plaintiffs gathered 1400 signatures from at least twenty-two towns and cities.  However, supporters were delayed and ultimately frustrated in their nomination efforts by the Secretary of State’s interpretation of 17 V.S.A. 2402. As a result, plaintiffs were only able to get town clerk certification for 580 signatures before a June 14 deadline. The trial court concluded that overall, the statute appeared to be a reasonable regulation of elections.  Nonetheless, the trial court denied the State’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief on the ground that the Secretary of State’s requirement that town clerks certify only names listed on original statements (as opposed to faxes or photocopies of those statements) unduly burdened plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The trial court denied plaintiffs’ request that the court eliminate the certification requirement altogether. The State appealed, arguing that the “original statement” requirement serves important state interests and imposes only a minor burden on plaintiffs’ rights. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the Secretary of State’s requirement that town clerks certify only original statements when performing their function pursuant to 17 V.S.A. 2402(a)(4) unconstitutionally burdened plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.  Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and permanent injunction for plaintiffs. View "Anderson v. Vermont " on Justia Law

Petitioner, who was sentenced to three to eight years in prison for lewd and lascivious behavior, appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his request for post-conviction relief on his claim of an Ex Post Facto Clause violation. During petitioner’s incarceration, the Legislature enacted a delayed-release statute extending the minimum terms inmates convicted of certain crimes must serve before becoming eligible for early release. Although petitioner successfully challenged in an earlier suit the application of the statute to him as a violation of the Federal Constitution’s prohibition on the retroactive enhancement of punishment, he nevertheless claimed that the Department of Corrections’s (DOC) application of the delayed-release statute constituted an ongoing violation because it delayed his participation in pre-release rehabilitative programming, effectively denying him a chance for parole upon the completion of his minimum sentence. Petitioner also argues that this delay violated his plea agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court already remedied the Ex Post Facto Clause violation by restoring petitioner’s minimum sentence and that he was serving the sentence he bargained for. View "In re Blow" on Justia Law

Following a permanency review hearing, the superior court amended its initial disposition order from a goal of reunification to a concurrent plan for either reunification or adoption. The mother appealed, claiming that the court erred in modifying the disposition order and finding that a reasonable period of time for her to complete needed services under the new plan was six months. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that it was a reasonable time and affirmed the judgment. View "In re R.M., R.M., and C.M." on Justia Law

Defendant Corinna Sullivan challenged her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she made to police officers in her apartment. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Sullivan" on Justia Law