Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal concerned whether the Vermont Public Service Board had jurisdiction to regulate interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services provided in Vermont. The Board concluded that fixed VoIP was a "telecommunications service" under Vermont law and Vermont regulation of VoIP was not preempted by federal law because intrastate calls could be separately identified. The Board deferred consideration of what type of regulation to impose to a separate phase of the proceeding. On appeal, Comcast Phone of Vermont, LLC argued that the Board erred in not addressing whether interconnected fixed VoIP was an information service or telecommunications service under federal law because, according to Comcast, VoIP is an information service and therefore any regulation is preempted by federal law. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the Board must reach this question and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Investigation into Regulation of Voice Over Internet Protocol" on Justia Law

Independent candidate Gary Trudell and voter Myron Dorfman challenged the constitutionality of Vermont’s schedule for filing candidate petitions, alleging that the uniform deadline for all party (major and minor) and independent candidates was discriminatory and impermissibly impinged upon the associational and voting rights of candidates and voters under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the filing deadline was a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation, justified by Vermont’s regulatory interests, the Court affirmed the lower court decision declaring the deadline constitutional. View "Trudell v. Vermont " 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

New England Coalition, Inc. (NEC) filed a complaint to the Supreme Court seeking injunctive relief to enjoin Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) from continuing to operate the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. NEC alleged that Entergy was operating in violation of the Public Service Board’s final order approving the 2002 sale of the power plant to Entergy in Docket No. 6545. Finding no grounds to grant equitable relief, the Supreme Court dismissed NEC's complaint. View "In re Investigation into General Order No. 45" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a jury verdict finding that defendant’s conceded breach of a duty of care, and the resulting low-impact, rear-end auto accident, was not the proximate cause of any injuries and harm to plaintiff. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s instruction concerning proximate cause improperly and prejudicially directed the jury to consider the foreseeability of plaintiff’s injuries, even though “duty” and “breach” had been established as a matter of law. On that ground, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court. The Court considered several other issues raised by plaintiff that were likely to arise on remand and concluded that none would require reversal. View "Fagnant v. Foss" on Justia Law

Father appealed a superior court family division's order that upheld a magistrate’s denial of his motion to modify his child support obligation. Specifically, father argued: (1) that the magistrate erred in declining to impute income to mother; and (2) that the magistrate failed to properly apply a credit in his favor to account for derivative benefits paid directly to mother on behalf of the minor child by the Social Security Administration on account of father’s disability. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court found that although the magistrate properly invoked the methodology established in the Court's holding in "Cantin," it did not complete its analysis: "[t]he magistrate conducted the first step of the guidelines analysis properly, imputing the derivative benefit to father and calculating a child support obligation accordingly. . . . However, the magistrate [. . .] never actually took the second step described in Cantin of applying [a $190 as a] payment from father to mother as a credit toward his child support obligation. Had it done so, it would have found that mother owed father a substantial monthly child support obligation on account of the imputed payment of child support from father to mother, by way of the derivative benefit, well in excess of the nominal child support obligation from father to mother pursuant to the guidelines calculation." Accordingly the Court reversed the superior court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that in the absence of a deviation from the guidelines calculation, father was entitled to an award of child support in the amount of the credit to him for the derivative benefit payment to mother less his child support obligation pursuant to the guidelines. The Court found that neither the magistrate nor the family division specifically addressed the proper accounting with respect to a $4370 lump sum derivative benefit arrearage payment to mother on behalf of the minor child. Because the obligation in question was payable to a third party, on remand the magistrate was ordered ensure that mother applied the lump sum toward father’s share of the child's medical bills, and that father was credited accordingly. View "LaMothe v. LeBlanc" 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