Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal of his medical malpractice action for failing to satisfy the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Allan Eisemann, M.D., practicing through a medical practice which bore his name, negligently failed to advise Plaintiff or his dentist of the known risks associated with a tooth extraction while Plaintiff was taking intervenous doses of a medication called "Zometa," prescribed for multiple myleoma. Defendant allegedly approved the procedure; Plaintiff's dentist pulled the tooth. Following the procedure, Plaintiff developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. All parties agreed that the statute of limitations period for Plaintiff's malpractice claims would expire October 9, 2009. By a letter dated in September, Plaintiff's counsel proposed to Dr. Eisemann's counsel and other potential defendants a "time out" agreement to toll the statute of limitations for ninety days so that the parties could pursue settlement. Although Dr. Eisemann signed off on the agreement, not all defendants did. As a result of Plaintiff's failure to reach an agreement with all defendants, Plaintiff filed suit on October 7, 2009. Counsel for Dr. Eisemann returned the acceptance of service to Plaintiff's counsel in January, 2010. Plaintiff did not filed the acceptance with the court at that time. The trial court dismissed the case on its own motion on April 15, 2011 based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his claim. Three days later, Plaintiff filed the signed acceptances of service. Dr. Eisemann moved to dismiss. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the Eisemann defendants are equitably estopped from invoking the statute of limitations. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff could not rely on the doctrine of equitable estoppel because his own "omissions or inadvertences" contributed to the problem. Accordingly, the Court affirmed dismissal of his case. View "Beebe v. Eisemann" on Justia Law

Defendant Jason Mead was convicted of attempted second-degree murder following a jury trial. He appealed that conviction on four grounds: (1) a State’s witness and a juror had improper contact during trial; (2) the trial court admitted excerpts of defendant’s testimony at a relief-from-abuse (RFA) hearing at which defendant was not represented by counsel; (3) the trial court admitted evidence of prior bad acts of defendant; and (4) the jury charge did not require the jury to identify which gunshot supported its conviction. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Mead" on Justia Law

Pro se defendant James Burke appealed his sexual assault conviction under 13 V.S.A. 3252(a)(1) and resulting eighteen-to-twenty-year sentence. Defendant contended that: (1) he was denied a speedy trial; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that complainant made false accusations of sexual assault in the past; (3) the court erred by refusing to allow him to present evidence of complainant’s past convictions; (4) the court erred by denying his motion to proceed pro se and by ordering him shackled in court; (5) the court improperly imposed a fixed term of imprisonment; and (6) the court should have granted his motion for a new trial. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion and sufficient evidence in the record support the jury's verdict and the trial court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Burke" on Justia Law

Barrett Holby, Grethe Holby, Kristin Holby, and Wegard Holby appealed orders of the Public Service Board which granted New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) authorizing the installation of a monopine telecommunications tower and associated facilities in Weston, and denying the Holbys' motion to alter the CPG order. The Holbys' properties either abut the property on which the proposed project is to be built, or are in close proximity to it. The Holbys' appeal was grounded on their claims that they were denied procedural due process in connection with the Board proceeding. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Holbys did not have constitutionally protected interests at stake, and therefore affirmed the Public Service Board's decision. View "In re Petition of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility" on Justia Law

Defendant Eddie Sinclair filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis in the criminal division, seeking to vacate a conviction from 1993 on the ground that his plea was not entered voluntarily. The court denied the motion, concluding there was no basis for a collateral attack on Defendant's plea. Defendant appealed, arguing his plea should be vacated because the sentencing court did not substantially comply with Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. In October 1992, the State charged Defendant with assault and robbery. Defendant entered a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of two-to-twelve years. In March 1993, the trial court held a change-of-plea hearing and engaged Defendant in plea colloquy. The court then accepted the plea and subsequently sentenced Defendant in accordance with the agreement. In November 2010, long after his sentence had been served, Defendant filed a pro se motion in the criminal division "pursuant to coram nobis" to "vacate/bring to trial/set aside" his 1993 conviction. Defendant claimed the plea was entered involuntarily because he was not told that the plea could be used to enhance a future sentence and he was under the influence of narcotics at that time. The motion alleged that he was currently serving a federal sentence that was enhanced based on his 1993 Vermont conviction. In a written order, the court denied the motion, ruling that Defendant had failed to demonstrate the plea colloquy was inadequate and that there was no basis for a collateral attack on the plea. The State contended that Defendant's petition was improperly brought in the criminal division because Defendant may not avail himself of coram nobis when postconviction relief (PCR) proceedings are available to him, and that they were available in this case. Thus, the State argued that the petition should be dismissed without reaching the merits of Defendant's arguments. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the State and concluded that Defendant was eligible to file a PCR petition and thus precluded from seeking relief through coram nobis. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the criminal division's denial of Defendant's motion. View "Vermont v. Sinclair" on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Kolibas was convicted by a jury of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal of his conviction, Defendant claimed the trial court in its instructions to the jury eliminated the element of intent from the State's burden of proving the aggravated assault charges. Defendant is the father of twelve-year-old A.K., who invited her thirteen-year-old friend, T.F., to a sleep-over. That evening, Defendant made smoothies for the two girls, his wife, and himself. At trial, Defendant testified that he placed one Ambien (a sleep aid) and half of a Valium (an anti-anxiety medication) into his wife's drink because she was "stressed out" and he "didn't want her bothering [him]." Defendant's wife testified that after Defendant left the kitchen to bring two smoothies to the girls, she poured her part of her drink into Defendant's cup. The girls drank the smoothies as they lay on a futon in A.K.'s bedroom and watched a movie. She soon felt dizzy and tired, and fell asleep in about thirty minutes. T.F. fell asleep and woke to Defendant touching her chest and genitals. The court instructed the jury that "[t]he State is not required to prove, but may prove, that the Defendant intended that a specific person be harmed in this [drugging] manner." Defendant admitted at trial he deliberately gave "stupefying drugs" to his wife. With the court's instruction, the Supreme Court concluded it was virtually assured the jury would find Defendant guilty of aggravated assault. "This is constitutional error: [b]ecause the State built its case around the theory that Defendant intended to drug the girls, Defendant built his defense on the theory of mistake. . . . However, after Defendant testified, the court decided that the State did not have to prove that he intended to drug a particular person, and that Defendant would not be permitted to argue to the jury a defense of mistake. As a result, the jury could have found Defendant guilty of aggravated assault against T.F. and A.K. if they did not believe he actually intended to drug them." Defendant's ability to defend against the specific charges brought by the State was so substantially prejudiced that the Court ordered a new trial. Because Defendant did not challenge his conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct, the Court did not disturb that conviction. View "Vermont v. Kolibas" on Justia Law

Defendants Richard Barnett and Cedric and Leslie Sanborn appealed a judgment which ruled that the City of Montpelier may prohibit boating, fishing, and swimming in Berlin Pond, a public body of water located outside the City and used as the City's drinking water supply. The City contended that the restrictions were supported by both a state health order and the powers granted to the City by the State. The trial court agreed and issued a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from engaging in the listed recreational activities and from trespassing upon land surrounding the pond that is owned by the City. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court: "[The Court's] decision reflects the fact that, under the laws of this state, the recreational use of Berlin Pond is a matter of state concern requiring a resolution at the state level. . . . [The Court] determine[d] only that the City's current powers are limited to preventing trespass upon its property." View "City of Montpelier v. Barnett" on Justia Law

Defendant Joseph McCarthy appealed his conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Defendant set up a dangerous shooting range on his property and invited others to join him in firing weapons at the site. An errant bullet struck and killed a neighbor in his nearby home. Defendant argued on appeal that: (1) a jury view of the scene presented misleading and prejudicial evidence and was not conducted with the necessary procedural and evidentiary safeguards; (2) the trial judge impermissibly assumed the roles of an advocate and a witness in reviewing the jury view; (3) the court erred by failing to excuse one of the jurors; and (4) his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Juvenile Defendant A.C. appealed an adjudication of delinquency. On the basis of an incident at school, the State filed a delinquency petition against him, alleging that he engaged in open and gross lewdness and lascivious conduct towards the complaining witness, A.R. A.C. raised several evidentiary issues and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's ruling. Upon review, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence to support the trial court's ruling, and affirmed the adjudication of delinquency. View "In re A.C." on Justia Law

The question before the Supreme Court was whether, and to what extent, a state's attorney was entitled to official immunity from civil liability for allegedly tortuous conduct concerning a local police officer. The trial court concluded that liability for the acts complained of was precluded by either qualified or absolute immunity, or was otherwise barred. In February 2010 when Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with the South Burlington Police Department, filed a complaint against Defendant, the Chittenden County State's Attorney, stating claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with Plaintiff's employment. The complaint alleged that Defendant (formerly a private lawyer and a member of what Plaintiff characterized as the Vermont "Drug Bar") harbored an animus against Plaintiff due to his police work. Plaintiff claimed that as state's attorney Defendant had "maliciously pursued a course of action . . . to undermine Plaintiff's work and credibility in the law enforcement community." As alleged in the complaint and in Plaintiff's later responses to discovery, Defendant's tortious misconduct included meeting with Plaintiff's supervisors to criticize his job performance and falsely accuse him of dishonesty; declining to file charges or seek search warrants based on Plaintiff's affidavits; threatening not to work with Plaintiff and thereby end his career if Plaintiff attempted to bypass the State's Attorney's office and obtain warrants directly from the trial court; criticizing Plaintiff's work when he was being considered by the State Police to serve on its Drug Task Force; impugning Plaintiff's honesty to other prosecutors; encouraging the filing of a civil-rights lawsuit against Plaintiff and testifying falsely in that action; and "leaking" harmful information about Plaintiff to criminal defense attorneys. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded "[t]he trial court's ruling was sound" and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the State's Attorney was entitled to absolute immunity. View "O'Connor v. Donovan" on Justia Law