Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff, a high school female athlete, became a patient of defendant who was an orthopedic surgeon and a professor at the University of Vermont medical school, in September 2000, a few months after her sixteenth birthday. Plaintiff had suffered a hip injury while training for soccer season, and her pediatrician referred her to defendant, whose office notes indicated that she had groin pain near the pubic area. After several visits, defendant told plaintiff that her parents did not need to accompany her to appointments, which sometimes took place on a weekly basis, sometimes after hours. On at least three occasions during the course of his treatment of plaintiff, including one time before her first surgery and another time before her second surgery, defendant inserted his ungloved fingers into plaintiff's vagina. No one other than defendant and plaintiff was present on these occasions. Defendant insisted these penetrations were legitimate medical internal examinations conducted for diagnostic purposes. Plaintiff sued defendant for sexual assault and battery and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. She appealed the superior court's grant of summary judgment to defendant based on a six-year statute of limitations applicable to childhood sexual abuse. The court determined that the limitations period had run as a matter of law before plaintiff filed her lawsuit relied primarily on her statements to police and her deposition testimony concerning her awareness of defendant's wrongful conduct at the time of the alleged assaults. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court erred by determining the limitations accrual date as a matter of law rather than allowing the jury to weigh inferences from the factual record regarding plaintiff's state of mind and knowledge during the relevant period of time. View "Clarke v. Abate" on Justia Law

Taxpayers are owners and operators of Travia's Inc., a small bar and grill. The company is organized as a S-corporation. They appealed the Department of Taxes' (DOT) assessment of meals tax and alcoholic beverage tax for the audit years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and corporate income and personal income tax for the audit years 2005, 2006, and 2007.  Following a hearing, the Commissioner of Taxes affirmed the Department's assessments. Taxpayers appealed the Commissioner's determination to the civil division, which affirmed. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that taxpayers did not meet their burden of demonstrating the assessments were incorrect, and therefore upheld the Commissioner's determination. View "Travia's Inc., and Mellion" on Justia Law

The State of Vermont appealed the suppression of evidence obtained in the stop of defendant Marek Tuma's vehicle that led to his arrest and charge of driving under the influence (DUI), arguing that the fact that one side of defendant's front license plate was one to two inches below the other gave rise to reasonable suspicion that he was committing a traffic violation. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court agreed with defense counsel that although there were cases where the angle of a license plate would be enough to justify a stop based on non-horizontality, this was not that case. View "Vermont v. Tuma" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. On appeal, he asserted that the trial court erred in: (1) prohibiting cross-examination of complainant about certain statements she allegedly made; (2) denying his motion for a new trial upon the discovery of an exculpatory post on complainant's MySpace page; and (3) permitting the State to introduce uncharged, prior bad act evidence. Finding that the introduction of defendant's prior contact with the complainant was admitted in error, the Supreme Court concluded the error was harmless. Finding no other error or abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Lawrence, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Cahill appealed his convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and reckless endangerment following an incident where he pointed a loaded firearm at a farmhand. He argued that the court erred: (1) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) by improperly instructing the jury on the elements of aggravated assault; and (3) by convicting him of both aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. The Supreme Court found that the trial court record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision to deny defendant's motion to acquit. Further, the Court found no error in the jury's instructions, "defendant continues to conflate or confuse the State's obligation to prove intent with a purported, but unnecessary, burden to overcome defendant's evidence of benign motive does not mean the instruction ruined his defense." Because the greater aggravated assault offense was upheld, and the State's concession that the felony convictions were mutually exclusive in this case, the Court did not address defendant's third argument.  On remand, the State was ordered to move to vacate one of the convictions at its election. View "Vermont v. Cahill" on Justia Law

Defendant Loren Senna appealed a superior court decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him. Defendant was convicted of the cultivation of more than twenty-five marijuana plants and for possession. Police had been called to defendant's residence when neighbors heard a screaming child inside. The officers sent to investigate detected the strong odor of marijuana as they moved closer to the front door. The officers saw that the children inside did not appear to be in distress. But after speaking with neighbors, the officers obtained a warrant to search defendant's residence. The trial court found that the State had not established that the police's initial entry into defendant's home was consensual, and excluded the evidence the State gathered during that entry. However, the court denied defendant's suppression motion, concluding that the smell of fresh marijuana just outside the front door and the neighbor's statements provided probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant. The issues on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether, in light of Vermont's law exempting qualifying registered patients from prosecution for possession and cultivation of marijuana, the smell of fresh marijuana outside a home, without determination of whether any occupants are registered patients, could support a finding of probable cause; and (2) whether the hearsay statements of an identified neighbor were sufficiently credible to meet the requirements of Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c) and the underlying constitutional requirements that Rule embodies. The Supreme Court concluded that both the marijuana odor and the neighbor's statements were properly considered in the probable-cause analysis, and accordingly affirm. View "Vermont v. Senna" on Justia Law