Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the trial court’s order revoking his probation. On appeal, he argued that he did not receive a “certificate explicitly setting forth” his probation conditions, as required by 28 V.S.A. 252(c), and that he did not have notice of the conditions. He also contended that the court did not make adequate factual findings regarding the credibility of defendant’s wife (the complainant), and that the court’s findings were erroneous. The Supreme Court agreed with defendant’s claim as to the failure to comply with the requirements of section 252(c) and reversed on that ground. View "Vermont v. Hemingway" on Justia Law

In a post-conviction relief (PCR) proceeding to vacate convictions based on a change of plea following a plea agreement, the court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The PCR court concluded that the change-of-plea colloquy was fundamentally flawed because the criminal court did not specifically ask petitioner if his plea was voluntary and free of undisclosed coercion or promises as required by Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The State appealed that decision, arguing that the colloquy substantially complied with Rule 11, the record demonstrated the plea was voluntary, and petitioner failed to allege actual prejudice. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, and reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "In re Hemingway" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in his underlying criminal case because his lawyers induced him to reject a plea bargain for a much lower sentence "by misrepresenting the potential maximum sentencing exposure petitioner was facing at trial." The superior court appointed a lawyer from the Prisoners’ Rights Office of the Defender General to represent petitioner in that court. The appointed public defender accepted representation and proceeded to represent petitioner throughout the trial court proceeding. The State moved to dismiss the petition under 13 V.S.A. 7134 because it was "a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner." The public defender answered that the case did not fit within the statute because the theory on which this petition was based had not been raised in earlier PCR petitions because it was not available at the time of the earlier petitions. The superior court granted summary judgment for the State. Shortly thereafter, the public defender filed a notice of appeal on petitioner’s behalf. In a letter to petitioner, the public defender said she initially thought there were no grounds for appeal, but then said "I changed my opinion and filed a notice of appeal for you." She added, however, that since filing the notice of appeal she discovered the Defender General’s office had a conflict of interest so the case had been assigned to conflict counsel. The first assigned conflict counsel withdrew because her firm had done a merits review for the Defender General on petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in connection with a prior PCR action. Counsel concluded that the firm’s prior negative merits review created a conflict of interest. The case was then assigned to attorney Michael Rose. Attorney Rose filed a motion for leave to withdraw, citing Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 and case law. Because it became clear during the argument on that motion that the Defender General had not gone through the procedure it typically goes through before seeking leave to withdraw on the basis cited by Attorney Rose, the Supreme Court invited the Defender General to present its position on the motion. Upon further review, the Supreme Court granted Attorney Rose’s motion for leave to withdraw, and it did not appoint new publicly funded counsel. View "In re Bruyette." on Justia Law

Defendant Kyle Bolaski appealed his conviction for second-degree murder after a jury trial. He argued the trial court erred in: (1) not instructing the jury that the jury had to find an absence of passion or provocation; (2) excluding evidence of the victim’s mental health history in the months before the incident; and (3) dismissing a juror during the trial because she reported having followed the case during the time of the grand jury. On appeal, defendant argued that even though his case was presented as a self-defense case, there were sufficient facts in evidence to merit an instruction on passion or provocation for the second-degree murder charge. He also argued that the exclusion of the victim’s mental health evidence was error because it was admissible under Rule 404(b). And lastly, he argued that the dismissal of a juror partway through the trial because she admitted to having followed the story of the case during the grand jury phase was improper. The Supreme Court could not conclude that the instructions in this case were full, fair and correct on the elements of second-degree murder, assuming that the trial court’s decision to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense was proper; nor could the Court conclude that the jury was not misled, despite the more accurate statement of the law in the voluntary manslaughter instruction. Some of the confusion in this case resulted from labeling defendant’s theory as trying to establish the victim’s motives for his actions. The Court concluded that the word was misused in this context. "If the medical records, for example, contained evidence that defendant had engaged in misconduct with respect to the victim’s girlfriend, we might describe that evidence as establishing a motive for the victim pursuing defendant with a splitting maul. Nothing like that is in the medical evidence. Instead, it relates generally to the victim’s mental health condition at the time of the killing, a circumstance that we would not describe in this case as motive." Based on its review of the excluded evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that in general it was relevant to defendant’s self-defense theory for the reason that defendant argued. The Court did not reach defendant's juror dismissal issue, and reversed and remanded this case for a new trial. View "Vermont v. Bolaski" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the civil suspension of his driver's license and the admission of the breath-test results in his criminal prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI). Defendant contended on appeal that because the test results were obtained after the testing machine registered a "fatal error," the breath-test analysis did not meet the requisite performance standards, and thus the necessary foundation for admissibility was not laid. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying suppression in the criminal case, but reversed and remanded the civil suspension. View "Vermont v. Burnett" on Justia Law

Defendant Edward Johnson appealed his convictions for attempted aggravated murder, kidnapping, lewd and lascivious conduct, unlawful trespass, and enhancement under Vermont's habitual offender statute. On appeal, he argue: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when a member of the jury pool mentioned in front of prospective jurors that defendant had another case; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant's identity as the perpetrator or that he had the requisite intent to kill. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the superior court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. He contended the court erred in failing to award credit for time served. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court's decision and granted defendant credit against the controlling burglary sentence for the time he spent in jail between arrest and sentencing on the later charges. View "Vermont v. LeClair" on Justia Law

The complainant in this case and defendant Tyler Waters lived together for several years and have a minor child together. After they broke up, complainant got a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order against defendant. A 2009 modification of the final RFA order was based on findings that defendant had abused complainant, there was a danger of further abuse, and defendant represented a credible threat to complainant’s safety. The order prohibited defendant from, among other things, abusing, threatening, stalking, or harassing complainant. It prohibited defendant from communicating or attempting to communicate directly or indirectly with complainant, except that it specifically stated, "[d]efendant may have contact by telephone only." Complainant reported to the police that due to the volume of communications from defendant she felt "harassed, bullied, and made to feel guilty." The State charged defendant with violating the RFA order. Specifically, the State alleged that defendant had violated the prohibition against harassing complainant. The ultimate issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether it was plain error for the trial court to instruct a jury that it could convict defendant for violating an abuse-prevention order prohibiting him from harassing petitioner if it concluded that he engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be "annoyed, irritated, tormented or alarmed." The Supreme Court concluded that the instruction was plain error, and that the evidence presented at trial could not support a conviction for violating the abuse-prevention order, as worded. View "Vermont v. Waters" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a superior court order that denied his motion to dismiss a two-count information alleging kidnapping and aggravated domestic assault. Defendant contended on appeal that the Orleans County State's Attorney who filed the information was invalidly appointed, and that his prosecutions were therefore unlawful and violated due process. The trial court disagreed, concluding the appointment was consistent with the Vermont Constitution and statute; and that, even if the appointment was infirm, the de facto officer doctrine validated the State's attorney authority to prosecute. The Supreme Court concluded the State's attorney was acting as a de facto officer and affirmed. View "Vermont v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

Defendant Joseph Kenvin appealed the sentence he received upon reconsideration by the superior court, which reduced the time to serve on his conviction for careless and negligent driving from eleven-to-twelve months to nine-to-twelve months. Defendant contended the trial court erred: (1) by finding him "very negligent" in causing the death of a collision victim, despite the jury's acquittal on the underlying charge of grossly negligent operation, death resulting; and (2) by ruling that defendant was not entitled to credit for time served while on restrictive conditions of pretrial release. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence but remanded the case back to the trial court to provide credit to defendant for the period between March 10, 2010 and March 22, 2010 during which defendant was subject to a twenty-four hour curfew. View "Vermont v. Kenvin" on Justia Law