Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2006, Petitioner Paul Kirby was charged with five counts of possessing child pornography after a search of his computer revealed five different video depictions of sexual conduct by a child or children. Evidence suggested that each video was downloaded independently and stored as a separate file on petitioner's computer. Petitioner pled guilty to three counts of possession in exchange for dismissal of the remaining two counts. Petitioner was sentenced to three concurrent prison terms of four to fifteen years. In 2008, Petitioner acting pro se, filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), and amended the petition with the assistance of counsel in 2009. The petition contained two claims: (1) that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to research, investigate, and inform him of the possibility of asserting a challenge to the multiple charges of possession that could have resulted in the five charges being reduced to one; and (2) because counsel failed to advise him on this legal theory prior to entering his plea agreement, petitioner's subsequent guilty pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. Petitioner moved for summary judgment on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The State opposed Petitioner's motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on both claims. The superior court granted the State's motion for summary judgment. Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel's assessment of the viability of a multiplicity challenge under 13 V.S.A. 2827(a) was not unreasonable, and thus did not create a material misunderstanding upon which Petitioner based his guilty pleas. Petitioner's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily and therefore he was not entitled to post-conviction relief. View "In re Kirby" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Reid appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual assault. In the summer of 2008, when she was six years old, the child "A.V.", made statements to her neighbors indicating that defendant had sexually abused her. A neighbor filed a report with the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF). The following day, a DCF investigator and a police officer went to A.V.’s school to question her about the alleged abuse. The investigators found that there was sufficient evidence that defendant had sexually abused A.V., and she was transported to the hospital for further examination. At the hospital, an experienced and trained Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) questioned A.V. and conducted a brief physical examination. Defendant was charged with aggravated sexual assault on August 28. In October 2008, the State provided notice that it intended to offer into evidence hearsay statements made by A.V. through various witnesses pursuant to V.R.E. 804a. Defendant asserted that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting hearsay evidence because the State failed to establish that the time, content, and circumstances of the child-victim’s statements provided substantial indicia of trustworthiness. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Reid" on Justia Law

Hartford police officers responded to a report of a possible burglary in progress, and used considerable force in restraining the suspect. The alleged burglar turned out to be the homeowner, who was disoriented due to a medical condition. Journalist Anne Galloway requested records relating to the police contact with the homeowner from the chief of police. The chief denied Galloway's request, as did the town manager when Galloway appealed the chief's decision. After Galloway filed an action to compel production of the records, the superior court ruled that under the Public Records Act's (PRA) exemption for police investigations, the police did not need to provide Galloway with any records produced or acquired before the point at which the officers decided against charging the homeowner with a criminal offense. Galloway then appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that because the homeowner's detention amounted to an arrest, the records in question must be disclosed under the PRA's proviso that "records reflecting the initial arrest of a person . . . shall be public." View "Galloway v. Town of Hartford" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court concerned whether a truck idling in the middle of the night in the parking lot of an auto repair shop that had previously been burglarized was sufficient to give police reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Defendant Nicole Paro did not challenge the facts as found by the trial court; she challenged only the trial court's legal conclusion that, given the particular facts of this case, the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop her vehicle. Police passed by Northeast Foreign Cars and noticed a Chevrolet pickup truck idling in the parking lot. The police officer thought this was suspicious, as the shop was not open for business, and he knew that this area had experienced previous break-ins, with the most recent being about nine months earlier. In fact, the police officer had personally investigated thefts from vehicles at Northeast Foreign Cars a year earlier in August 2009. As he started to turn around, the Chevy truck pulled out of the parking lot and headed east towards the police officer.The officer made a motor vehicle stop based solely on his suspicion of criminal activity at Northeast Foreign Cars. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and moved to suppress all evidence obtained through the traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: "We recognize that police officers are trained to be suspicious and it is their job to investigate suspicious situations. But we must also be mindful of our right to wander where we please, when we please, without fear of a police seizure." View "Vermont v. Paro" on Justia Law

Defendant Chase Tetrault and friends broke into a remote camp owned by A.C. (camp owner), damaging appliances and personal items. Defendant pled guilty to one count of unlawful trespass and the State requested restitution. At the restitution hearing, Defendant argued that the camp owner should be able to recover only the actual value of the damaged items at the time of the trespass, not their replacement cost. He also argued restitution could not be had for items that were not damaged, but "merely used." The trial judge disagreed, and awarded the camp owner the full amount of claimed damages. On appeal, Defendant raised the same two arguments, along with a new argument that restitution was not appropriate at all in this case, because the crime of unlawful trespass did not include an element of destruction of property. "While the value of a used microwave or toaster would be lower than the value of the identical appliances in new condition, Defendant’s suggestion that the replacement cost can be estimated by what the items might fetch at a yard sale is pettifoggery. . . .[a] victim of a home invasion should not have to visit local thrift stores or pore through the classifieds to determine the value of a used blender." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding the camp owner restitution in the amount sought. View "Vermont v. Tetrault" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeffory Hammond appealed his convictions for sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct. Defendant argued that: (1) he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal based on the complainant's contradictory and otherwise incredible testimony; (2) alternatively, he was entitled to a new trial for the same reasons; (3) the court's jury instructions were erroneous; (4) the court erred under Vermont's Rape Shield by allowing the State to present testimony from the complainant about her lack of sexual experience; and (5) the court erred by allowing non-expert and expert "anecdotal" testimony about the manner in which teenage victims sometimes report sexual assault. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Hammond" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Moira Lamay, a former Vermont state trooper, appealed the grant of summary judgmet in favor of the State on her claim of employment discrimination. On appeal, Plaintiff contended the trial court erred in: (1) finding that she had presented insufficient evidence of gender bias as a motivating factor in her discharge; and (2) declining to consider the allegations in her complaint to the Vermont Human Rights Commission. "Plaintiff's difficulty here is that her evidence, whether characterized as direct or circumstantial, was insufficient to support a finding that gender or gender stereotyping was a motivating factor in her termination." The Supreme Court, after its review, upheld the grant of summary judgment in favor of the State. View "Lamay v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Defendant Jason Mead was convicted of attempted second-degree murder following a jury trial. He appealed that conviction on four grounds: (1) a State’s witness and a juror had improper contact during trial; (2) the trial court admitted excerpts of defendant’s testimony at a relief-from-abuse (RFA) hearing at which defendant was not represented by counsel; (3) the trial court admitted evidence of prior bad acts of defendant; and (4) the jury charge did not require the jury to identify which gunshot supported its conviction. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Mead" on Justia Law

Pro se defendant James Burke appealed his sexual assault conviction under 13 V.S.A. 3252(a)(1) and resulting eighteen-to-twenty-year sentence. Defendant contended that: (1) he was denied a speedy trial; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that complainant made false accusations of sexual assault in the past; (3) the court erred by refusing to allow him to present evidence of complainant’s past convictions; (4) the court erred by denying his motion to proceed pro se and by ordering him shackled in court; (5) the court improperly imposed a fixed term of imprisonment; and (6) the court should have granted his motion for a new trial. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion and sufficient evidence in the record support the jury's verdict and the trial court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Burke" on Justia Law

Defendant Eddie Sinclair filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis in the criminal division, seeking to vacate a conviction from 1993 on the ground that his plea was not entered voluntarily. The court denied the motion, concluding there was no basis for a collateral attack on Defendant's plea. Defendant appealed, arguing his plea should be vacated because the sentencing court did not substantially comply with Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. In October 1992, the State charged Defendant with assault and robbery. Defendant entered a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of two-to-twelve years. In March 1993, the trial court held a change-of-plea hearing and engaged Defendant in plea colloquy. The court then accepted the plea and subsequently sentenced Defendant in accordance with the agreement. In November 2010, long after his sentence had been served, Defendant filed a pro se motion in the criminal division "pursuant to coram nobis" to "vacate/bring to trial/set aside" his 1993 conviction. Defendant claimed the plea was entered involuntarily because he was not told that the plea could be used to enhance a future sentence and he was under the influence of narcotics at that time. The motion alleged that he was currently serving a federal sentence that was enhanced based on his 1993 Vermont conviction. In a written order, the court denied the motion, ruling that Defendant had failed to demonstrate the plea colloquy was inadequate and that there was no basis for a collateral attack on the plea. The State contended that Defendant's petition was improperly brought in the criminal division because Defendant may not avail himself of coram nobis when postconviction relief (PCR) proceedings are available to him, and that they were available in this case. Thus, the State argued that the petition should be dismissed without reaching the merits of Defendant's arguments. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the State and concluded that Defendant was eligible to file a PCR petition and thus precluded from seeking relief through coram nobis. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the criminal division's denial of Defendant's motion. View "Vermont v. Sinclair" on Justia Law