Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in a case involving a man who was convicted of assault and robbery following a jury trial. The defendant, Jason Bockus, appealed the conviction arguing that the trial court erred in not suppressing out-of-court non-eyewitness identifications and denying his motion for acquittal. He also contended that the court improperly punished him with a harsher sentence for exercising his right to go to trial.The primary issue in the case was whether the out-of-court identifications made by non-eyewitnesses, including family members and acquaintances of the defendant, should have been suppressed. The defendant argued that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive because the police officer showed the witnesses surveillance footage of the crime and then showed them a photo of the defendant. The defendant also argued that the police officer's failure to ask the witnesses not to discuss their own identifications with each other amounted to undue suggestiveness.The court disagreed, finding that the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive. The court noted that the police officer did not show unmasked depictions of the defendant until after each non-eyewitness viewed the surveillance footage and identified the defendant of their own accord. The court also found that the circumstances surrounding the identifications did not give rise to the danger of "irreparable mistaken identification."Regarding the motion for acquittal, the court concluded that the State had presented sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the defendant and that he used physical menace to commit the crime. The court also rejected the defendant's claim that the court imposed a harsher sentence because he exercised his right to trial, finding that the sentence was within the statutory limits and was not based on improper or inaccurate information.Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision and upheld the defendant's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Bockus" on Justia Law

In this case, Rein Kolts appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief (PCR) arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Kolts was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child and, despite two confessions, he rejected plea deals and was ultimately found guilty, receiving a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five-years-to-life. Kolts later filed a PCR petition alleging that his attorney failed to adequately inform him about the mandatory minimum sentence and did not advise him to accept the plea offer. The PCR court agreed that Kolts' counsel's performance was deficient but determined that Kolts did not suffer prejudice, as it was not probable that the original criminal trial court would have accepted Kolts' guilty plea. The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed with the PCR court's decision, stating it erred by considering postconviction evidence in making its determination. The court concluded that in determining whether the criminal court would have accepted a plea agreement, the PCR court can only consider evidence that was available to the criminal court at the time it would have considered the plea. Therefore, the court reversed the PCR court's decision and remanded the case back to the civil division for reconsideration of Kolts' ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "In re Kolts" on Justia Law

In this case decided by the State of Vermont Supreme Court, the defendant, Walter Taylor, III, appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, attempted domestic assault, assault and robbery, and obstruction of justice, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request for a voluntary intoxication instruction and his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the obstruction-of-justice charge. The court affirmed the convictions.The case centered around an event in July 2021 where the defendant had an argument with his ex-girlfriend, which escalated into physical assault, and subsequently attacked a neighbor who was recording the incident on her phone. The defendant claimed that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident and argued that this should have been considered in his defense, as it could have affected his ability to form the necessary mental state for the charged crimes.However, the court held that the evidence did not establish a nexus between alcohol consumption and an effect on the defendant’s mental state. The court noted that there was no evidence regarding the size of the containers of the beverages that defendant had consumed, the timeframe in which they were consumed, or their alcohol concentration. The court found that the evidence of intoxication was insufficient to call into question whether defendant was capable of forming the required intent or whether he actually formed the required intent.On the charge of obstruction of justice, the defendant argued that his conduct could not be considered obstruction as there was no ongoing investigation at the time of the alleged assault. The court disagreed, ruling that the existence of a pending judicial proceeding is not required to prove obstruction of justice. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct, which included assaulting a person who appeared to be recording his conduct after being informed that the police were on their way, fell within the language of the obstruction of justice statute.Therefore, the court affirmed the defendant's convictions for aggravated assault, attempted domestic assault, assault and robbery, and obstruction of justice. View "State v. Walter Taylor, III" on Justia Law

Defendant Edwin Rodriquez appealed the denial of his motion to be resentenced. Defendant was charged with aggravated domestic assault and related criminal counts for physically assaulting his then-romantic partner. After defendant pled not guilty, the trial court ordered defendant to be held without bail. While awaiting trial, defendant remained incarcerated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and unsuccessfully sought to be released on bail based on health concerns arising from conditions of his confinement. At a change-of-plea hearing in December 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated domestic assault in the first degree and one count of domestic assault. As part of that plea agreement, the State agreed to a cap of twelve years of incarceration. in advance of his sentencing hearing, defendant submitted a sentencing memorandum in which he sought a 4- to 8-year sentence. Defendant referenced several mitigating factors in support of his sentence. The trial court evaluated the pertinent factors and arrived at what it considered an appropriate sentence: 9- to 12-years. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented and improperly relied on prior uncharged conduct. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the sentence. View "Vermont v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In October 1987, defendant William Wheelock, III shot and killed James Brillon with a shotgun. He was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to seventeen-years-to-life, with a split sentence to serve seventeen years. Following defendant’s release from probation in 1999, his Vermont probation officer (PO) filed three separate violation-of-probation (VOP) complaints against him in 1999, 2002, and 2003. In 2004, after the third VOP complaint was filed the year before, the VOP court concluded that defendant violated three probation conditions, revoked probation, and imposed the original sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant remained incarcerated since his 2003 arrest on the most recent VOP complaint, more than twenty years ago. In April 2018, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appeal the 2004 revocation decision. The PCR court granted the petition and permitted defendant to appeal the 2004 violations and revocation of probation to this Court. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the probation violations and reversed and remanded the court’s revocation of probation. "When the VOP court revoked defendant’s probation after failing to consider all of the evidence but following consideration of prior conduct, in contravention of 28 V.S.A. § 303(b), it clearly prejudiced defendant’s defense and adversely affected the integrity of the judicial process. ... we conclude that defendant is entitled to a new probation-revocation-disposition hearing." View "Vermont v. Wheelock" on Justia Law

Defendant James Menize was convicted by jury on one count of aggravated sexual assault of a victim under the age of thirteen, and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. Defendant raised multiple arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting prior bad-act evidence, not curing J.M.’s trial testimony which characterized the bad acts as each occurring on more than once occasion, and providing a jury instruction that failed to cabin the resulting prejudice; (2) the court should have suppressed all the inculpatory statements he made during a March 3, 2010, interview as either unconstitutionally elicited during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings or as involuntary; (3) the timing of the amended information prejudiced his ability to put on an effective defense because the new charge contained a different mental state for which he did not have time to adequately prepare; and (4) the court erred in overruling his objection to the state's expert witness testimony regarding another expert's testimony. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Menize" on Justia Law

Defendant Joshua Boyer challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence gathered in a consented-to search of his residence. In April 2018, M.B. complained to police that defendant had sexually assaulted her multiple times, including the previous day. M.B. resided in the house where the alleged assaults occurred with defendant, his wife, and other children. Defendant was arrested and released on conditions, including that he should not return to the family home where M.B. was then residing. Several days later, a police detective and an investigator from the Department for Children and Families (DCF) met with M.B. at a friend’s home where she was temporarily staying and asked if there might be DNA evidence present in M.B.’s family home. M.B. said that defendant might have disposed of a condom in her bedroom wastebasket and used a pair of her underwear to wipe himself off after the assault. Knowing that defendant and his wife would likely be away from their home to attend defendant’s arraignment, the detective asked M.B. if she would be comfortable returning to the house to locate this potential evidence. M.B., the detective, and the DCF investigator then went to the home. M.B. went outside and opened a trashcan by the exterior of the house, which she noted “had been gone through.” The detective seized the trashcan. The police later searched the trashcan pursuant to a warrant, which revealed a condom wrapper, stained paper towels, pharmacy receipts, and a rug. M.B. identified the rug as from her bedroom, and a subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the presence of defendant’s semen on the rug. Appealing the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found at the house, defendant argued fourteen-year-old M.B. lacked authority to consent to the search. Defendant also argued his constitutional speedy-trial rights were violated. Because the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the search was lawful and that defendant’s speedy-trial rights were not violated, it affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "Vermont v. Boyer" on Justia Law

Defendant Theodore Colehamer appealed two convictions by jury: (1) felony driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense; and (2) misdemeanor eluding a police officer. He contended the trial court abused its discretion in denying defense counsel the opportunity to ask a question of potential jurors at voir dire, that it made multiple errors on evidentiary rulings, and that it improperly selected a jury foreperson. He also argued the eluding conviction should have been vacated because he did not violate the statute’s plain terms. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion on any of the evidentiary or jury issues but agreed with defendant that he did not elude law enforcement as charged. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the DUI conviction and vacated the eluding conviction. View "Vermont v. Colehamer" on Justia Law

In 2018, the State charged defendant Larry Labrecque with multiple counts of sexual assault, including the aggravated sexual assault of a child. He remained held without bail through his trial, which commenced on May 9, 2022. A total of approximately 45.5 months passed between charging and trial. In that time, the parties engaged in ample motion practice, "and a global pandemic occurred." At a May 12, 2020 status conference, defense counsel argued that due process required defendant’s release, citing to his nearly 2-year detention pending trial and “the judiciary’s inability to honor [his] speedy-trial rights.” On October 20, 2020, defendant moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which was denied on December 7. The criminal division determined that the length of delay, approximately 28 months at the time, was sufficient to trigger full consideration of the balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), but that the factors together did not weigh in favor of finding a speedy-trial violation. Defendant would file multiple motions for bail review in 2021; no due-process violations were found, and his pretrial detention continued. In November 2021, the criminal division scheduled a jury draw for January 10, 2022. On January 4, 2022, the criminal division granted defendant’s unopposed motion to continue the trial and rescheduled the trial to start on February 8, 2022. On February 8, the criminal division continued the trial because a necessary State witness was unavailable. Defendant declined to waive his Confrontation Clause rights to allow the witness to testify remotely. A jury was drawn on May 5, 2022 and the trial was held from May 9 to May 13. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser-included charge of sexual assault. On August 5, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal in which his sole argument was that his speedy-trial right had been violated. The criminal division concluded that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated and dismissed the case against him with prejudice. Considering all the Barker factors, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial and reversed the criminal division's dismissal. View "Vermont v. Labrecque" on Justia Law

Defendant Austin White appealed the suspension of his driver’s license. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the results of an evidentiary blood-alcohol test because the State did not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant’s blood sample was collected and analyzed in compliance with Department of Public Safety (DPS) rules. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded there was indeed an insufficient foundation to allow admission of the test result. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant. View "Vermont v. White" on Justia Law