Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Yetha Lumumba is a native of the Democratic Republic of Congo. He immigrated to the United States in 2004, where he became a legal permanent resident. In 2012, defendant, then a student at the University of Vermont (UVM), was convicted of sexual assault of a fellow student. In June of 2010, defendant and the victim, J.B, met up for a bike ride to a Burlington beach which ended in sex that J.B. felt was nonconsensual. Several months later, J.B. reported the incident and defendant was subsequently charged with sexual assault against J.B. After a three-day jury trial, defendant was found guilty and received a sentence of eight years to life in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred: (1) in allowing a clinical psychologist to give expert testimony about common reactions and behaviors of rape victims in between J.B.’s testimony and the defense’s cross-examination of J.B.; (2) in not permitting defense counsel to have J.B. look over transcripts of her prior testimony during cross-examination to determine whether she had made a prior inconsistent statement; and (3) in admitting hearsay testimony from a UVM police officer who met with J.B. Defendant also challenged his sentence, arguing that his immigration status prevented him from meeting Vermont’s statutory requirement for sex-offender counseling prior to release from incarceration, thereby effectively sentencing him to a disproportionately harsh punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, but reversed on sentencing. The trial court did not have an obligation to reduce the sentence awarded in consideration of imminent deportation upon release from prison, but it did have an obligation under Vermont’s individualized sentencing process to examine defendant’s case and to consider the consequences of his particular situation in fashioning a sentence. Stating that it did not care to understand these consequences was a failure of this obligation and an abuse of discretion; awarding a sentence range of which the only evidence presented at sentencing indicated was not likely to be a range at all required more from the court in the way of findings than the court provided. Because the Supreme Court reversed on these grounds, it did not reach defendant’s Eighth Amendment claim. View "Vermont v. Lumumba" on Justia Law

Defendant Owen Cornell was convicted by jury of lewd and lascivious conduct with a twelve-year-old child. Defendant argued on appeal: (1) that the boilerplate "sex offender conditions" imposed by the trial court were not sufficiently individualized to comply with statutory sentencing requirements; (2) that the vague and ambiguous wording of some of the conditions violated defendant’s due process rights and impermissibly delegated the court’s authority to his probation officer; (3) and that several of the conditions were unduly restrictive and invasive in violation of defendant’s substantive due process rights. Defendant raised these issues in response to a limited remand from the Supreme Court, but the trial court did not address them because its authority on remand, as requested by the parties, was limited to clarifying the conditions it had already imposed. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s September 2013 entry order extending the trial court’s authority on remand to resolve defendant’s challenges, the case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings on defendant’s motion to reconsider the probation conditions. View "Vermont v. Cornell" on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick Bostwick was convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and sentenced to three to fifteen years, all suspended but six months. Defendant's probation order contained "special sex offender conditions": "You will not live in an apartment complex that allows children, in neighborhoods with large numbers of children, or in neighborhoods near parks, schools, playgrounds, etc, unless directed otherwise by your Supervising Officer"; and "You shall reside where your Supervising Officer directs. You shall not change your residence without the prior written permission of your Supervising Officer." While defendant was still incarcerated, the State filed a probation violation complaint, claiming that defendant had violated the condition stating: "You shall reside where your Supervising Officer directs." The State claimed that defendant had violated this condition because he did not submit a residence for his probation officer's approval prior to his release and therefore he would be homeless upon his release. The court dismissed the complaint for "impossibility of performance." Defendant was subsequently released and, with approval from his probation officer, resided at a few temporary addresses in succession. In its analysis, the court found that defendant did not look for housing for approximately one month, and that defendant "certainly should have known that abandoning his efforts to find housing for several days . . . was not in compliance with his obligations under the terms of his probation." Defendant argued that the requirements that he make housing search calls every day and find housing by a certain date were not part of his court-ordered probation conditions. Therefore, defendant claimed that his probation officer lacked authority to impose those requirements on him and that defendant had no notice of the consequences of failing to fulfill those requirements. Defendant further argued that he had no meaningful opportunity to find housing, that it was in fact impossible for him to find housing, and that his failure to find housing was not willful. Because the Supreme Court agreed with defendant that he did not violate any of his court-ordered conditions of release, it did not reach the remainder of his other arguments made on appeal. The Court held that defendant's conduct was not inconsistent with the plain language of his probation conditions, and reversed. View "Vermont v. Bostwick" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a restitution order requiring him to pay $2,427.36 for damage to a car. On appeal, he argued: (1) the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the victim’s loss was uninsured; (2) the court failed to make a specific finding that the damage was uninsured; (3) the court erred in admitting and using a repair estimate because it was hearsay; and (4) the court erred in calculating the amount of restitution by using the cost of repair rather than the difference in fair market value before and after the accident. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order. View "Vermont v. Morse" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Aubuchon appealed the superior court’s denial of his request under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 for additional credit toward his aggregated minimum sentence. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Vermont v. Aubuchon" on Justia Law

The State of New Hampshire attempted to extradite Vermont resident and petitioner William LaPlante for failing to appear at a 2009 hearing allegedly related to a criminal conviction in New Hampshire in 1998. Following a Governor’s warrant from Vermont, petitioner requested a writ of habeas corpus from the Vermont superior court in Rutland, which was granted on grounds that the warrant lacked information required by statute. Vermont appealed this grant of habeas corpus relief, contesting the court’s holding and its findings regarding the contents of the Governor’s warrant. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re LaPlante" on Justia Law

Petitioner Roy Girouard appealed the superior court’s denial of a motion to reopen his Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 post-conviction relief petition and to order the Department of Corrections (DOC) to release him on furlough. Petitioner argued that the superior court’s 2009 order directing DOC to evaluate petitioner for furlough was the law of the case and the superior court had “inherent authority” to enforce it. Petitioner alleged that DOC’s actions constituted a “bad faith evasion” of the court’s order and argued that the superior court erred by failing to develop a factual record to determine whether DOC followed the court’s mandate. The State counters that DOC complied with the 2009 superior court order, and that its programming decisions are unreviewable under Rule 75. "The fact that a colorable constitutional claim implicates a programming decision committed to the DOC’s discretion does not insulate the alleged constitutional violation from judicial review. [. . .] To the extent that petitioner is not merely challenging the propriety of the programming decision here, but is raising a colorable constitutional claim, his claim is reviewable. [. . . ] Petitioner’s allegations state a claim sufficient to survive dismissal." The Court reversed and remanded. View "In re Girouard" on Justia Law

Defendants, in consolidated cases, challenged a recent amendment to Vermont's DNA-database statute as unconstitutional. As of July 2011, the amendment mandated warrantless, suspicionless DNA collection and analysis from anyone arraigned for a felony after a determination of probable cause. Defendants in these cases were all arraigned on qualifying charges and subsequently refused to give a DNA sample. All trial courts found the amendment authorized unconstitutional searches and seizures, either under the Vermont or federal constitutions. The Vermont Supreme Court emphasized that its holding pertained only to the State Constitution, and not the U.S. Constitution. "The marginal weight of the State's interest in DNA collection at the point of arraignment, balanced against the weight of the privacy interest retained by arraignees prior to conviction, persuad[ed] the [Vermont Supreme Court] to hold that 20 VSA 1933(a)(2), and associated sections, which expand[ed] the DNA sample requirement to defendants charged with qualifying crimes for which probable cause is found, violate[d] Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial courts' holdings. View "Vermont v. Medina" on Justia Law

Petitioner Eric Williams pled guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to serve forty to sixty years in prison. These charges stemmed from a fire in an apartment house in which petitioner lived. Three young children and their grandmother died in the fire. Petitioner was nineteen years old at the time of the fire. Petitioner sought to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. Following a twelve-day trial, the civil division ruled that although petitioner’s defense attorney provided adequate representation in connection with his guilty pleas, the assistance he provided to his client during sentencing fell below minimum standards of representation. Both petitioner and the State appealed the court's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the court's decision that petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel prior to his guilty plea. The Court also affirmed the ruling that his representation during the sentencing phase was inadequate and that he was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to provide more than perfunctory assistance. The Court agreed with the PCR court that petitioner's sentence should have been vacated and a new sentencing hearing scheduled. View "In re Williams" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the issue before the Supreme Court presented centered on whether the same prior conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) could serve both to criminalize a refusal to submit to an evidentiary blood-alcohol test under 23 V.S.A. 1201(b) and to enhance the penalty for that offense under 23 V.S.A. 1210. The trial court held that the statute prohibited such dual use, and the State appealed that decision.  After careful consideration of the two cases, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the plain language of the statute allowed the same prior DUI conviction to be used both as an element of criminal refusal and to enhance the penalty for the refusal.View "Vermont v. Wainwright" on Justia Law