Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant Shaun Freeman was given a twenty-year-to-life sentence following a plea agreement on assault charges. On automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, he challenged two of the probation conditions that were attached to his plea agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld one of the conditions but remanded the case for the criminal division of the superior court to reexamine and to justify, revise, or strike the other condition. View "Vermont v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant Shane Casey appealed his conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual assault, alleging that the trial court erred in: (1) denying defendant’s motion to sever a joint trial; (2) refusing to grant a new trial after codefendant pled no contest midtrial; and (3) admitting the victim’s diary as evidence of her sexual abuse. The Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Casey" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Snow appealed his conviction for sexual assault. He contended that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction, mischaracterizing the law and eliminating the State’s burden to prove each and every element of the crime as charged. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury instruction accurately reflected the law as applied to the circumstances of this case and that the instruction did not compromise defendant’s ability to contest the charges against him. View "Vermont v. Snow" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a police officer's visual estimate of defendant's speed can support a reasonable suspicion to warrant a traffic stop. Defendants Todd Dunham and Heidi Tatham argued that a visual estimate amounts to nothing more than a mere hunch or guess, and fails to provide objective grounds for a traffic stop. The Court disagreed and affirmed the denial of defendants' motions to suppress. View "Vermont v. Dunham" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeffrey Gentes, who entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI), argued on appeal that the superior court’s criminal division erred by denying his motion to dismiss both the criminal charge and the civil suspension of his license. Defendant argued for dismissal based his claim that the Vermont Department of Health's negligence deprived him of his statutory right to obtain an independent blood test result. Having weighed the "Bailey" factors, the Supreme Court found no constitutional violation and agreed with the trial court that dismissal of the charge against defendant was not an appropriate remedy for mistakenly destroyed evidence in the context of this particular case. View "Vermont v. Gentes" on Justia Law

In 2005, defendant Thomas Bogert, Jr. pled guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography and no contest to one count of aggravated sexual assault and one count of sexual assault. He was sentenced to a total of three to twenty-three years, eight years to serve, with the balance suspended. Defendant signed a probation order that included thirty-five conditions. The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was the permissibility, under the Vermont Constitution, of a warrantless and suspicionless search of a convicted offender furloughed to his home and subject to a standard condition of a conditional reentry agreement that provides for such searches. Upon review, the Court concluded that the search in this case satisfied the requirements of the Vermont Constitution applicable to offenders on a conditional reentry status and, accordingly, affirmed. View "Vermont v. Bogert" on Justia Law