Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether a probationer could be charged with violating probation for threatening his probation officer without evidence that he intended the officer hear or learn of the statements. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the State did not make a prima facie case of a probation violation, and accordingly, reversed. View "Vermont v. Johnstone" on Justia Law

Defendant Asim Betts was charged with felony possession of crack cocaine after a vehicle in which he was riding was stopped, and he was transported to the police station. After the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges against him, defendant entered a conditional plea agreement reserving to appeal the suppression decision. Defendant argued that all evidence should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution because his consent to be taken to the police barracks for a strip search was invalid. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's consent was obtained only in response to the threat of an unlawful warrantless arrest under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 11. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Betts" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on charges of disorderly conduct and cruelty to a child. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented against Defendant was sufficient to support the convictions. View "Vermont v. Amsden" on Justia Law

Defendant Frank Fellows appealed convictions for sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State to question his siblings regarding his relationship with the child's (his daughter) mother, and for using that evidence in the State's closing argument. In addition, Defendant contended the trial court omitted reversible error when it admitted testimony of the child-victim's friend regarding a conversation the friend had with the victim on the day after the incident. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Fellows" on Justia Law

Petitioner William Kimmick appealed a superior court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. Finding no ineffective counsel or error by the superior court in its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. View "In re Kimmick" on Justia Law

Petitioner Vito Russo appealed a civil division order dismissing his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner sought to attack convictions for which his sentences had been completed, and the court concluded that petitioner was not "in custody under sentence" as required by 13 V.S.A. 7131. Petitioner argued that he satisfied the custody requirement because although his sentences were completed they were used by the criminal division to hold him without bail pending trial on a different charge. Because petitioner failed to allege that his pretrial incarceration was sufficiently linked to the convictions he seeks to attack, the Supreme Court concluded that petitioner failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the PCR statute, and affirmed. View "In re Russo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kelley O'Brien sued defendants Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) and FAHC nurse Catherine Synnott for drawing his blood at the request of law enforcement officers and without his consent, and for injuries he suffered when allegedly assaulted by police officers after defendants negligently allowed those officers unrestricted access to him in the hospital while he was recovering from surgery. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment, concluding that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the police officers would harm plaintiff if allowed unsupervised access, and that nurse had plaintiff's apparent consent to draw the blood. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court agreed with the trial court that plaintiff has not identified any evidence that defendants should have anticipated that the police officers would attack plaintiff if left unsupervised. As the trial court noted, plaintiff was in police custody at the time, so some police presence around him was to be expected. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that defendants could not be held liable for negligence on account of nurse's alleged conduct in leaving plaintiff alone with law enforcement officers even viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff. Given that the Legislature has not indicated an intent to limit the liability of medical personnel who draw blood at the request of law enforcement, the Court concluded that, at least in a situation as alleged by plaintiff here in which a patient is conscious and the authority to draw blood depends upon actual, as opposed to statutorily implied, consent the police officers’ request did not protect defendants from liability for drawing the blood without plaintiff’s consent. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court in part (as to granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's negligence claim), and reversed in part (as to granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's battery claim). View "O'Brien v. Synnott" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Carpenter appealed his sentence of five to fourteen years imprisonment under Vermont's Habitual Offender Act after pleading guilty to one felony count of violating an abuse-prevention order (VAPO) and five misdemeanors. Defendant contends that his five-year-minimum sentence was unlawful because the trial court was not authorized under section 11 to impose a minimum sentence greater than the maximum sentence of "not more than three years" for the underlying felony VAPO. The State argued that: (1) the plain language of the Habitual Offender Act permits a minimum sentence greater than the statutory maximum of the underlying offense; (2) a contrary interpretation of section 11 would produce irrational and absurd results; and (3) defendant failed to contest the enhancement below and cannot demonstrate plain error to overcome his waiver of objection. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed on the last point. "Defendant points to no compromise to the criminal justice system resulting from the claimed error, and none is discerned. As outlined above, defendant's plea agreement contemplated that the court could impose an aggregate minimum term close, but not identical, to eight years according to the underlying statutes proscribing the offenses. . . . Defendant's sentence of five to fourteen years is neither contrary to his agreement, nor inconsistent with the minimum authorized by statutes other than section 11, nor beyond the enhanced maximum allowed by the Habitual Offender Act. The sentence imposed was nothing defendant did not bargain for." View "Vermont v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

In 2008, defendant John Turner was arraigned on one count of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child and one count of unlawful restraint of a victim less than sixteen years of age. His first trial occurred in March 2010, and resulted in a hung jury. His second trial occurred in July 2010, and he was convicted of unlawful restraint and acquitted of lewd or lascivious conduct. He appealed, claiming his conviction must be reversed because he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Finding no violation of his Constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "Vermont v. Turner" on Justia Law

Defendant Rusty Brooks appealed his convictions on two counts of aggravated sexual assault on a minor following a jury trial, alleging several errors. Defendant asserted that: (1) the trial court committed reversible error by failing to suppress all statements made to the police; (2) by admitting evidence of defendant’s website-browsing history; (3) the introduction of previously excluded testimony at trial rendered the trial was unfair; and (4) even if none of his individual claims constituted reversible error, the cumulative effect of all errors denied him a fair trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Brooks" on Justia Law