Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Stacey Vaillancourt, operated a daycare facility in her home. In January 2019, six-month-old H.B. was dropped off at the daycare. On January 24, 2019, H.B. was found unresponsive in her crib and later declared dead at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that H.B. died from diphenhydramine intoxication, a substance found in medications like Benadryl, which is not recommended for infants without a prescription. H.B. had not been prescribed diphenhydramine, and her parents and other caregivers denied giving it to her.The Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Criminal Division, denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to a child with death resulting. The defendant renewed her motion for judgment of acquittal, which was again denied by the trial court.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The evidence showed that the defendant, an experienced childcare provider, administered diphenhydramine to H.B., leading to her death. The court found that the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant acted with criminal negligence and willfully exposed H.B. to danger, knowing the risks involved.The court also rejected the defendant's arguments that the verdicts were inconsistent and violated double jeopardy. The court explained that the mental states required for the two charges were not mutually exclusive and that the legislature intended to allow multiple punishments for the same conduct under different statutes. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of video evidence showing H.B.'s developmental capacity, as it was relevant to the State's case and not unduly prejudicial. View "State v. Vaillancourt" on Justia Law

In April 2019, the respondent, Jessica Morrill, pled nolo contendere to assault and robbery. In September 2023, she filed a motion in the criminal division to vacate her conviction, arguing that it was obtained as a result of her being a victim of human trafficking, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 2658. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the criminal division lacked jurisdiction and that the motion should have been filed in the civil division. The criminal division concluded it had jurisdiction and granted the motion, finding that the respondent met the statutory requirements for relief.The State filed a notice of appeal, acknowledging it did not have a right to appeal under the relevant statutes and rules but requested the Vermont Supreme Court to construe the appeal as a petition for extraordinary relief. The Vermont Supreme Court granted the State's request for review due to the importance of the issue and the purely legal nature of the question.The Vermont Supreme Court held that the criminal division has jurisdiction over motions to vacate convictions under 13 V.S.A. § 2658. The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme, including the context and language used by the legislature, indicates that the criminal division is the appropriate venue for such motions. The Court noted that the legislature explicitly assigned jurisdiction to the civil division in other sections of the statute but did not do so for § 2658. Additionally, the Court found that the nature of the relief sought under § 2658, which includes expungement, aligns with the criminal division's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court denied the State's petition for extraordinary relief. View "State v. Morrill" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted by a jury of sexual assault, lewd and lascivious conduct, and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from allegations made by the defendant's daughter, K.O., who reported that her father had sexually assaulted her over a period of seven years, starting when she was ten years old. The State charged the defendant with multiple counts, including sexual assault and aggravated repeated sexual assault of K.O., as well as lewd and lascivious conduct against K.O. and another minor, A.S. The defendant was also charged with obstruction of justice based on his actions during the investigation.The defendant appealed his convictions, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated due to jury irregularities, that evidentiary rulings undermined his right to a fair trial, and that the jury instructions were misleading. The Superior Court, Lamoille Unit, Criminal Division, had previously denied the defendant's motions to exclude certain jurors for cause and had admitted various pieces of evidence over the defendant's objections.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's challenges for cause against certain jurors, as there was no evidence of implied bias. The court also found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the audio recording of K.O.'s conversation with police, the prenuptial agreement, the photo display, and the diagram of the vulva, as these pieces of evidence were relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The court concluded that the jury instructions were not misleading and did not direct a verdict on any element of the crime. The court also found no plain error in the description of the sexual acts necessary to convict the defendant on each charge. View "State v. Orost" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with disorderly conduct, attempted assault on a law enforcement officer with bodily fluids, and misdemeanor unlawful mischief after an incident where he threatened a bystander and spat on an officer. Following his arrest, the defendant urinated, spat, and rubbed his genitals on various parts of his holding cell, leading to the cell's closure and $75 in clean-up costs.The Superior Court, Orleans Unit, Criminal Division, granted a judgment of acquittal on the disorderly conduct charge but denied acquittal on the attempted assault and unlawful mischief charges. The jury found the defendant guilty of both remaining charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that his actions did not constitute "damage" under the unlawful-mischief statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c).The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. The Court held that the term "damage" in the statute should be interpreted broadly to include actions that impair the use or function of property, even if they do not cause physical harm. The Court found that the defendant's actions resulted in a substantial impairment of the holding cell's use, as it had to be taken out of service and cleaned, incurring additional costs. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant's conduct constituted "damage" under the statute.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the jury had sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty of misdemeanor unlawful mischief. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three counts of second-degree aggravated domestic assault and one count of felony unlawful mischief. The charges stemmed from an incident where the defendant allegedly slapped the complainant's arm, pushed her into a wall, and slammed her onto the floor, causing her head to hit the ground. Additionally, the defendant was accused of damaging the complainant's laptop and phone.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Criminal Division, admitted a 911 caller's statement that the defendant was beating the complainant, excluded a statement by an investigating officer that the situation was "a wash," and did not strike the complainant's testimony that police had to tell her she had been assaulted. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to one-to-three years, suspended except for 120 days to serve, and five years of probation.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court upheld the admission of the 911 caller's statement, finding it admissible as a present sense impression and rationally based on the caller's perception. The court also upheld the exclusion of the officer's statement, agreeing that it was an opinion on the defendant's guilt, which was for the jury to decide. The court found no plain error in the trial court's failure to strike the complainant's testimony about the police chief's explanation.However, the court found that the jury instruction on the intent required for the unlawful mischief charge was erroneous. The instruction allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty if he acted knowingly, which is a lower standard than the statute's requirement of intent. This error was not harmless, as the defendant's intent was the central issue. Consequently, the court reversed and remanded the unlawful mischief conviction for a new trial but affirmed the other convictions. View "State v. Lyddy" on Justia Law

In 2009, the petitioner pled guilty to simple assault and unlawful trespass without expressly agreeing to the facts of the charges, instead accepting the affidavits provided by police officers. Later, he was charged with new crimes, including gross negligent operation resulting in death and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. The State sought an enhanced sentence based on his prior felony convictions, including the 2009 unlawful trespass conviction. In March 2018, the petitioner pled guilty to the new charges and admitted to being a habitual offender, resulting in an enhanced sentence of nineteen years to life.The petitioner filed a postconviction relief (PCR) petition in March 2022, arguing that the enhanced portion of his sentence was unlawful due to the lack of a factual basis for his 2009 conviction. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioner, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing without the habitual-offender enhancement, citing that the law at the time of his plea allowed for such a challenge.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner waived his right to challenge the predicate convictions supporting the enhanced sentence when he entered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea in 2018. The court referenced its previous decisions, including In re Torres and In re Gay, which established that a defendant who pleads guilty waives the right to collaterally attack the sentence based on prior convictions. The case was remanded for consideration of the petitioner's unaddressed ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. View "In re Velde" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with attempted second-degree murder for allegedly stabbing his roommate in the neck with a fillet knife in November 2019. The defendant admitted to the stabbing but claimed self-defense. The roommate testified that they had a good relationship and were drinking buddies, but a scuffle at a bar led to the incident. The bartender corroborated the roommate's account, adding that the defendant was angry and mentioned having a knife. The defendant testified that he acted in self-defense because the roommate threatened to kill him.The Superior Court, Franklin Unit, Criminal Division, conducted the trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault, a lesser-included offense of attempted second-degree murder. The defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the court erred in handling a discovery violation, denying judicial notice of the bartender's dismissed DUI charge, and failing to ensure the jury could hear defense counsel's questions due to COVID-19 mask protocols. The court denied the motion, finding no prejudice from the discovery violation and offering remedies the defendant declined. It also found no error in denying judicial notice and attributed any hearing issues to defense counsel's failure to speak up.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not commit plain or structural error by failing to sua sponte inquire if jurors could hear defense counsel's questions. It found no prejudice from the discovery violation, as the defendant declined offered remedies. The court also upheld the trial court's decision not to take judicial notice of the bartender's dismissed DUI charge, finding the proposed method appropriate. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "State v. L'Esperance" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. The charges stemmed from allegations made by J.P., the son of the defendant’s girlfriend, who claimed that the defendant had sexually abused him over several years. The abuse allegedly began when J.P. was around four or five years old and continued intermittently until early 2018. The allegations surfaced after a physical altercation between the defendant and J.P.’s mother, which led to the defendant moving out of the home. J.P. disclosed the abuse to his mother and school employees shortly after the defendant left.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Criminal Division, initially tried the defendant, resulting in an acquittal on one count and a mistrial on the remaining counts. Before the second trial, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of J.P.’s “concerning behavior,” including possession of pornography, arguing it was relevant to show an alternative motive for J.P.’s allegations. The court excluded this evidence under Vermont’s Rape Shield Law, which prohibits evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct. The court also found that the evidence was not probative and would likely confuse the jury. The second trial resulted in convictions on the remaining counts.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding J.P.’s “concerning behavior” was proper under the Rape Shield Law and that the evidence was not relevant to the case. The court also found that the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments, which the defendant claimed were prejudicial, did not amount to plain error. The statements did not violate the “golden rule” prohibition, as they were aimed at supporting the credibility of J.P.’s testimony rather than asking the jurors to place themselves in J.P.’s position. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of cruelty to a child after a jury trial. The case involved a one-year-old child, O.S., who lived with his mother and the defendant. O.S. began showing symptoms of a stomach bug and was later found to have multiple fractures and bruises, which medical experts determined were consistent with child abuse. The mother recalled incidents where the defendant was rough with O.S. and noticed unexplained bruises. The defendant suggested that O.S. might have been injured accidentally during a shower.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Criminal Division, allowed the State to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for cruelty to a child from 2012 to demonstrate intent. The court excluded evidence of a 2009 incident due to lack of a conviction. The jury was instructed to consider the prior conviction only for assessing the defendant’s intent and not as evidence of propensity. The jury found the defendant guilty.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the admission of the prior conviction did not constitute plain error. The evidence was relevant to proving the defendant’s intent, a necessary element of the charge. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under Vermont Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court also noted that the trial court provided limiting instructions to the jury to mitigate any potential prejudice. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that the admission of the prior conviction did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings. View "State v. Nicholas" on Justia Law

In March 2022, a police officer arrested the defendant on suspicion of DUI. At the stationhouse, the officer read the defendant her implied-consent rights from a standard form, including the right to a second breath test after receiving the results of the first. The defendant waived her right to speak with an attorney and agreed to provide a breath sample. Before providing the test result, the officer asked if she wanted a second test, which she declined. The officer then informed her that her blood alcohol content was .121, above the legal limit.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Criminal Division, denied the defendant's motion to suppress the breath-test result. The court found that the officer had informed the defendant of her rights and that she had declined the second test before knowing the result of the first. The court concluded that the defendant's ability to elect a second test did not change between the request and the opportunity to elect.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that under 23 V.S.A. §§ 1202(d)(5) and 1203(c), law enforcement must provide the results of the first breath test before requiring a suspect to decide on a second test. The officer's failure to do so violated the defendant's statutory rights, making her decision uninformed. The court ruled that the breath-test result should be suppressed and remanded the case for further proceedings in the criminal matter and for entry of judgment in the defendant's favor in the civil-suspension proceedings. View "State v. Ettore" on Justia Law