Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendants Michael Weisler and Raymond King contended the trial court erred in denying their respective motions to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle in which they were passengers. On a fall 2009 evening, a Vermont state trooper stopped a vehicle containing Defendants and driver Timothy Stone. The officer observed what he believed to be "marijuana flakes" on Weisler's shirt. The officer ordered Stone out of the vehicle, and as Stone exited, Weisler reached under the seat. The officer observed what appeared to be a cellophane bag of cocaine. The officer ordered everyone out of the car while he performed a safety-sweep of the vehicle. The trial court found that the vehicle's owner voluntarily consented to the search. Defendants contended: (1) the finding of voluntariness must be reviewed de novo on appeal; (2) the consent to search was not voluntary; and (3) the consent was tainted by the owner's unlawful de facto arrest. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the finding of voluntariness is subject to de novo review, but concluded that the consent was neither involuntary nor tainted. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Vermont v. Weisler" on Justia Law

Defendant Diana Charland appealed her sentence following her jury conviction on a charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI), third or subsequent offense.  She argued that the trial court improperly enhanced her sentence, without advance notice to her, based on its unsupported assumptions that her husband gave perjured testimony at her trial and that she suborned that false testimony.  Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: "[a]lthough we have addressed each of defendant's arguments, we acknowledge that the United States Supreme Court held in 'Dunnigan' that when a defendant objects to sentence enhancement resulting from the court's conclusion that the defendant committed perjury at trial, the trial court 'must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice, or an attempt to do the same, under the perjury definition we have set out.'  In this case, the trial court made no findings meeting the standards of Dunnigan.  The court concluded that defendant had suborned her husband's perjured trial testimony, but offered no rationale for that conclusion other than that it was obvious.  While defendant's failure to object meant that the Dunnigan findings requirement was not triggered, we do not suggest that the court's bare conclusion would have been sufficient if there had been an objection.  We affirm on this record because the record demonstrates that the court could reach the conclusion that it did." View "Vermont v. Charland" on Justia Law

Defendant Yai Bol appealed his conviction for giving false information to a police officer and possession of cocaine. He argued that the trial court erred by preventing his counsel from using a peremptory challenge to strike a black member of the jury pool. After it was seated and the trial conducted, the jury acquitted Defendant of the assault charges but convicted him of providing false information to a police officer and possession of cocaine. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial court misstated federal constitutional jurisprudence in maintaining that the United States Supreme Court had ruled it impermissible to strike the sole black juror from the venire without stating a reason. He concluded that the court's erroneous denial of his peremptory challenge should result in a new trial because this ruling denied him a fair trial. Having found that the court erred in barring Defendant's peremptory challenge, the Supreme Court turned to the question of appropriate remedy: "[i]t is settled Vermont law that when a defendant is left with an undesired juror after exhausting his peremptory challenges in response to the trial court's failure to remove a juror properly challenged for cause, the court's error is reversible error." The Court remanded the case for a new trial. View "Vermont v. Bol" on Justia Law

Defendant Trevor Herrick was convicted by a jury on second-degree murder charges and sentenced to twenty-two years to life.  Defendant was romantically involved with the victim's wife, and fatally stabbed the victim following a verbal and physical altercation. As the jury entered the courtroom to be sworn, three people walked in wearing t-shirts memorializing the victim.  Following voir dire, Defendant moved for mistrial, which the trial court denied.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury to consider his individual characteristics in connection with its "adequate provocation" charge for the mitigating defense of "passion-provocation manslaughter," and that the court erred in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial when the jury was exposed to potentially prejudicial extraneous influence by the t-shirts. Upon review of the trial court's record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court effectively concluded that the potential jurors did not demonstrate a state of mind inconsistent with deciding the case fairly: "[i]t made this decision based on its individual voir dire of the prospective jurors, none of whom stated that he or she would be unable to remain impartial.  The trial court is in a unique position to evaluate juror bias, and we defer to its conclusions." With regard to the trial court's ruling to the "adequate provocation" defense, the Court found the jury instructions "track[ed] our case law…and are not plain error." The Court affirmed the lower court's decisions and Defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Herrick" on Justia Law

The question before the Court in this case was what style of civil discourse may constitute "threatening behavior."  Defendant Jason Sanville appealed a trial court's revocation of his probation for violating a condition that read, "Violent or threatening behavior is not allowed at any time."  He contended that he could not have violated the condition because his only action was speaking with no accompanying physical conduct.  In December 2008, while Defendant was on probation, his mother entered into a rental agreement for the lease of a mobile home. Defendant, with the landlord's knowledge, lived in the trailer with his mother and performed some repairs on the property in lieu of a portion of the rent.  In March 2009, the landlord claimed that some rent was past due and that Defendant had failed to complete some of the agreed-upon repairs.  Defendant disputed those claims, at times suggesting he would destroy the mobile home, undo the repairs he had made, and, on at least one occasion, saying he was going "to kick [landlord and her husband's] butts."  At no time, however, did he approach or make a physical gesture towards the landlord.  Upon review of the revocation record and applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court did not question "the trial court's findings that defendant had a testy relationship with his landlord and made disrespectful comments to her and her husband on several occasions.  But the conclusion that his choice of words to express his anger and frustration violated his conditions of probation was erroneous.  Defendant's comments to his landlord push the boundaries of appropriate behavior for someone in the process of criminal rehabilitation, but it cannot be said that he was fairly informed that such bluster would result in his loss of freedom the condition is simply too vague." The Court reversed the revocation of Defendant's parole because its conditions failed to thoroughly apprise Defendant of the conduct prohibited. View "Vermont v. Sanville" on Justia Law

Defendant Isaac Faham appealed his conviction of attempted sexual assault after a jury trial. On appeal, Defendant made two arguments: (1) the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of attempted sexual assault; and (2) the trial court unconstitutionally denied him the opportunity to present a complete and adequate defense by precluding him from introducing evidence of complainant’s prior drug use.  Upon review of the briefs submitted by the parties and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that at no point in his post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal did Defendant argue that the State presented insufficient evidence on the element of attempting to engage in a sexual act.  Because this issue was unpreserved, the Court did not reach it. With regard to his second issue on appeal, Defendant maintained that the excluded evidence was relevant to his defense that complainant fabricated the sexual assault complaint in retaliation for Defendant denying her access to drugs and then abandoning her in Charlotte.  Defendant asserted that the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution by denying him the right to present a complete defense and to confront witnesses against him.  The Supreme Court concluded that Defendant’s proffers were insufficient to sustain his challenge to the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Faham" on Justia Law

This case arose out of relationships among three women: the victim, "Amy", and Defendant Lisa Lampman.  Amy and the victim were romantically involved for two and a half years.  After that relationship ended, Amy moved in with Defendant.  In January 2009, the three women encountered each other in a gas station parking lot where a fight ensued.  Four individuals were criminally charged as a result of the fight: Defendant, Amy, Nathan (Amy's son), and Anthony.  The proprietor of the gas station witnessed the victim being beaten and trying to defend herself.  Amy stated that she observed Defendant deliver a "football style kick" to the victim's face.  Throughout trial, Defendant maintained that the victim was the instigator, starting the fight by pushing Amy and that Defendant had merely acted in self defense.  Defense counsel objected a question posed to one of the witnesses, to which the trial court responded, "I'm finding independently that there was a conspiracy, at least an implicit conspiracy to beat up [the victim]," thus overruling defendant's objection. Defendant made no objection to this ruling at trial, nor did she request a limiting instruction or move for a mistrial.  Further, she did not raise any issue with the court's statement in her motion for a new trial.  However, on appeal, Defendant argued that by finding a conspiracy, the judge usurped the jury's role as fact finder on the ultimate issue of self-defense and deprived her of the right to a trial by jury.  Upon review of the trial record and briefs submitted in this case, the Supreme Court found that because this claim was argued for the first time in this appeal, Defendant failed to preserve her claim of error. With regard to other issues Defendant raised on appeal, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and that Defendant's conviction was supported by the evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Vermont v. Lampman" on Justia Law

Defendant Elliott Russell appealed his jury conviction for aggravated assault, arguing: (1) it was an error to admit certain correspondence he sent while incarcerated because its content was irrelevant and prejudicial; (2) the evidence presented was not sufficient to support a jury verdict of guilty; and (3) the court's denial of his request for a jury charge on the lesser offense of simple assault was in error.  This case arose from a 2007 incident at bar in Bennington where Defendant was drinking with a group of companions, including Henry Dummeyer.  The victim and his friend, Felix Rivera, were also drinking in the pub.  Defendant and Dummeyer were smoking outside the pub when Dummeyer's girlfriend told them that the victim had made an upsetting comment directed at her. When Dummeyer and Defendant confronted the men, Dummeyer began yelling about the victim's behavior toward his girlfriend.  As they exchanged angry words back and forth, Defendant and the victim became engaged in a physical altercation. The two men separated, and Rivera saw the victim holding his stomach and defendant with a knife in his hand.  The victim came to Rivera's aid, kicking Defendant out of the way, at which point defendant left the scene.  Dummeyer began physically attacking the victim who tried to fight back while exclaiming "I've been stabbed."  At some point Dummeyer too left the scene.  Rivera contacted emergency services while driving the victim to the hospital and indicated the victim had started the fight.  At the hospital, doctors treated the victim for injuries to the head, chest, and abdomen, consistent with stab wounds. Aggravated assault requires specific intent to harm.  To that end, the State sought to introduce certain letters defendant wrote before the altercation in which he threatened another victim. Over defendant's objections, the court allowed portions of the letters to be read at trial.  The jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated assault, and Defendant appealed. Upon review of the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found the admission of the letters probative with regard to Defendant's intent to harm. Further, the Court was "unconvinced that the evidence reasonably supported an instruction" for the lesser offense of simple assault. Under these circumstances, the evidence did not reasonably support an instruction on simple assault.  The Court found trial court's determination was therefore proper. View "Vermont v. Russell" on Justia Law

Defendant David Boglioli appealed his conviction for voluntary manslaughter and raised multiple grounds for reversal.  Among them, Defendant alleged he was denied a fair trial when he was precluded from presenting evidence of the victim's threats against others.  Defendant claimed reversible error on various theories regarding the jury instructions.  He also argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty for voluntary manslaughter and that this verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.  Prior to the killing, Defendant and his victim had a history.  The two were neighbors and the victim made a habit of tormenting Defendant.  According to the evidence presented at trial, the victim physically assaulted defendant on numerous occasions and shot projectiles at defendant's home including BBs, darts, pellets, rocks, and bullets.  He also threatened to kill and hurt Defendant and verbally harassed him. Defendant raised the affirmative defense of self-defense.  The State requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, which the trial court granted over Defendant's objection.  The jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter. Upon review of all of the issues Defendant raised on appeal, the Supreme Court took all in turn and affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. View "Vermont v. Boglioli" on Justia Law

In this complaint for review of governmental action under Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure 75, Plaintiff-inmate Brian LeClair appealed a superior court's refusal to order the Department of Corrections to give him double credit for time served in a correctional facility after his furlough status was improperly revoked.  In November 2006, Plaintiff was charged with burglary. This charge was based on an incident that occurred in April 2004, before Plaintiff's conviction on previous charges.  The new charge arose when DNA evidence connected Plaintiff to the earlier offense.  At the time of the new charge, Plaintiff had completed his minimum, but not his maximum, sentence.  Although he was on conditional reentry furlough when the new charge was filed, he was incarcerated for what was to be a short period of time for violating the terms of his conditional reentry furlough agreement.  When the new charge was filed, however, the Department revoked Plaintiff's furlough status, and he remained incarcerated.  Independent of his furlough revocation, Plaintiff was held for lack of bail on the new charge. In an August 2007 decision, the superior court ruled that because the sole basis of the revocation was plaintiff's alleged violation of his promise in the furlough agreement not to commit any illegal act, his furlough status had been improperly revoked based on an incident that occurred before he signed the agreement. Plaintiff filed a complaint for review of governmental action under Rule 75, arguing that the Department was compelled to award him credit for the 279 days between the revocation of his furlough and his conviction on the new burglary charge not only against his original sentences, but also against his sentence on the new charge.  In a May 2010 decision, the superior court ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to double credit for those 279 days, notwithstanding the fact that his furlough status had been improperly revoked. According to the State, the expiration of Plaintiff's underlying sentences and his acceptance into drug court on the most recent charge means that the Supreme Court's decision on the merits of Plaintiff's appeal would have no impact on Plaintiff, and thus there is no live controversy.  Plaintiff responded that a live controversy continued to exist because, if the Court found in his favor in this appeal, his maximum sentence would be considered completed in February 2010, before the latest charge, and thus he could receive credit against any new sentence for the time he spent in custody after the new charge was filed. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal as moot. View "In re LeClair" on Justia Law