Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In consolidated appeals, defendant challenged his conviction for unlawful trespass and his obligation (as condition of probation) to complete a Domestic Abuse Education Program (DAEP). Defendant was charged with entering or remaining in a place where notice of trespass was given. The "place" at issue here was his ex-girlfriend's car when, in the course of an argument, she repeatedly demanded he leave. At sentencing, the State asked the court to order defendant to complete DAEP as a special condition of probation. The court recognized that DAEP was a unique recommendation for this type of offense but found the State's request warranted. Defendant's probation officer later filed a probation violation complaint alleging defendant violated the DAEP condition of his probation. The probation officer averred that when defendant attended his intake meeting to determine his eligibility for DAEP, he refused to admit to the information, which was a condition of enrollment. The probation officer asked the court to revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence. Defendant asserted that because he had been convicted of unlawful trespass after trial and did not plead guilty, he should not have been ordered to complete DAEP because the DAEP condition "set him up to fail" because he never agreed with the State's information and affidavit. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court recognized defendant's perception that he was not guilty and therefore could not admit his guilt. At that point, the court told defendant DAEP became obligatory in order to avoid incarceration, regardless of his disagreement with the conviction or sentence, or both. Upon review of defendant's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court denied his challenge to his conviction. "An unpleasant choice is not synonymous with no choice and, in any event, probation was imposed as a condition to the suspension of the jail term otherwise deemed fitting by the trial court in response to defendant's conviction for unlawful trespass . . . it is not unreasonable for the court to require acknowledgment of those facts by the defendant as a condition of probation.  The evidence amply support[ed] the court's conclusion that defendant violated probation by failing to complete DAEP as ordered." View "Vermont v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea, arguing that he was not sufficiently advised of the potential immigration consequences of his conviction. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the language employed during defendant's plea colloquy adequately advised him that a guilty plea could result in deportation or denial of U.S. citizenship. Therefore the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Vermont v. Mutwale" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a probationer could be charged with violating probation for threatening his probation officer without evidence that he intended the officer hear or learn of the statements. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the State did not make a prima facie case of a probation violation, and accordingly, reversed. View "Vermont v. Johnstone" on Justia Law

Defendant Asim Betts was charged with felony possession of crack cocaine after a vehicle in which he was riding was stopped, and he was transported to the police station. After the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges against him, defendant entered a conditional plea agreement reserving to appeal the suppression decision. Defendant argued that all evidence should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution because his consent to be taken to the police barracks for a strip search was invalid. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's consent was obtained only in response to the threat of an unlawful warrantless arrest under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 11. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Betts" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Gilbert and Shelagh McCormack appealed a superior court's denial of their motion for a new trial on the grounds of alleged juror bias. The issues on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether plaintiffs' motion was timely; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion under "In re Nash," (614 A.2d 367 (1991)); and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion under "implied bias." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "McCormack v. Rutland Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

Father appealed a superior court's judgment terminating his parental rights with respect to B.C. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in: (1) denying parent-child contact in violation of his fundamental rights; (2) denying his request for an independent mental examination of B.C.; (3) making unsupported findings; and (4) applying the statutory best-interests criteria. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re B.C." on Justia Law

Mother appealed a trial court order terminating her residual parental rights to her children A.B. and A.B. She argued the trial court erred in denying her request to proceed pro se, which she made on the first day of the termination hearing. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's request, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "In re A.B. and A.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Adam Cate sued the City of Burlington for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claiming that the City disciplined him for actions and in a manner not authorized by the City's personnel manual. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding the manual unambiguously allowed the City to place plaintiff on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into unacceptable behavior. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to prove his claim for IIED. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the trial court misconstrued the City's personnel manual, that issues of fact still remained, and there was sufficient evidence of outrageous conduct. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with plaintiff's claims of error and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the City. View "Cate v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on charges of disorderly conduct and cruelty to a child. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented against Defendant was sufficient to support the convictions. View "Vermont v. Amsden" on Justia Law

Defendant Frank Fellows appealed convictions for sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State to question his siblings regarding his relationship with the child's (his daughter) mother, and for using that evidence in the State's closing argument. In addition, Defendant contended the trial court omitted reversible error when it admitted testimony of the child-victim's friend regarding a conversation the friend had with the victim on the day after the incident. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Fellows" on Justia Law