Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant Ali Abdi (a Somali Bantu immigrant) was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault on a child. He moved for a new trial based in part on a claim of jury misconduct resulting from a juror's acquisition of information on the internet concerning Somali culture--a subject that played a significant role at trial. The trial court held a hearing, questioned the jurors, and issued a written decision denying Defendant's motion. The court concluded that though the extraneous information had the capacity to affect the jury's verdict, it was a harmless error. Finding that "if even a single juror’s impartiality is overcome by an improper extraneous influence, the accused has been deprived of the right to an impartial jury," the Supreme Court concluded the State had not met its burden of proving the jury had not been improperly influenced. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Vermont v. Abdi" on Justia Law

Defendant Jennifer Wyrocki appealed her conviction of disturbing the peace by telephone. The State charged her with making repeated and anonymous terrifying, intimidating, threatening, harassing, or annoying telephone calls. Defendant first argues that the trial court incorrectly found that the calls were "anonymous," and that as applied to this case, 13 V.S.A. 1027 violated the First Amendment of the federal constitution because it criminalizes protected speech. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Defendant that her calls were not "anonymous" within the meaning of the statute, and therefore reversed. View "Vermont v. Wyrocki" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Blaise appealed a superior court decision that he violated three conditions of his probation for his alleged failure to: (1) adequately participate in counseling as directed by his probation officer; (2) pay required fines; and (3) complete 140 hours of community service.  On appeal, Defendant argued that neither the court nor his probation officer imposed upon him a probation condition requiring him to attend and complete counseling at Teen Challenge, the program he stopped attending, and that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that he violated conditions related to community service or the payment of fines.  Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the State failed to prove that Defendant violated any of the probation conditions for which he was charged and that the errors were not harmless because of a later admitted-to violation.  View "Vermont v. Blaise" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Voog pled guilty to simple assault and reckless endangerment. He appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to strike surplusage from the information and affidavit of probable cause, and sought the return of property seized from him. Following sentencing, Defendant was placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). In 2010, Defendant filed a pro se motion petitioning the court to "strike from the court, adjudicative, and incarcerative records, the unsubstantiated and non-adjudicated allegations" that he alleged were in the arrest affidavit and information "to prevent their continued use by [DOC] and other agencies in a substantially prejudicial manner." Defendant claimed that DOC was improperly using the information and the affidavit of probable cause that supported the assault charge to increase his "incarcerative level," which, in turn, resulted in his transfer to an out-of-state maximum security facility. The trial court denied Defendant's motion explaining that it did not have authority over DOC's decisions "regarding level of incarceration." On its face, nothing in the information was found as irrelevant or surplusage. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to strike "surplusage" from the information was appropriately denied. With regard to his seized property, the Court reversed and remanded the case for consideration of whether Defendant was entitled to return of his lawfully seized property, directing the trial court to consider whether "the government ha[d] a continuing [legitimate] interest" in Defendant's property. View "Vermont v. Voog" on Justia Law

This case concerns public access to income-adjusted property tax records. Appellee Joseph O’Dea sought a copy of the Town of Manchester's state property tax adjustment report, which contains a list of the property tax adjustments of Town taxpayers based in most instances on their income. Appellee requested a copy of the "HS-122" (named for the bill under which the report is required) report for the Town of Manchester from the Town Treasurer. The Town denied Appellee's request, asserting that the HS-122 report is exempt from disclosure under various provisions of 1 V.S.A. 317(c). The Town does provide the total property tax bill of each taxpayer but redacts the information showing the amount paid by the state and the amount paid by the taxpayer. Appellee appealed to Bennington Superior Court which held a hearing on the merits. The court issued an opinion declaring the report to be public information and ordering the Town to produce the report. The Town appealed the superior court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the report consists of "return information" that is confidential and not subject to disclosure. Therefore, the Court reversed the superior court's decision. View "In re HS-122" on Justia Law

Craig Wilson appealed a family division order that dismissed his motion to modify part of his 2005 final divorce decree. The court concluded that the provision at issue pertained to property division and he did not demonstrate a sufficient reason to modify its terms. On appeal, Mr. Wilson argued that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the motion as a matter of law and not considering the merits of his request for relief from judgment. The order explained that when the parties' youngest child turned eighteen or graduated from high school (in 2014) the house would be sold and the parties would share in the proceeds. The order specifically delineated that neither party was entitled to maintenance. In August 2010, husband filed a motion to modify the divorce decree, claiming that after being laid off in January 2009, he remained unemployed and did not have the financial means to continue sharing the costs of taxes, insurance and maintenance on the house. He asked to be relieved of his obligation of paying for one-half of the taxes and future maintenance. He also asked that the house be placed on the market immediately instead of in 2014. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the family division did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Wilson's claims of financial hardship were insufficient to warrant relief. Furthermore, the Court found that the provisions of the decree relating to the house were "aspects of property division and not maintenance." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the family divisions' decision to dismiss Mr. Wilson's requests. View "Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joshua Handverger, the former city manager of Winooski, appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Winooski city attorney. Plaintiff sued the city attorney, individually, for breach of fiduciary duty in the course of municipal infighting over Plaintiff's performance as manager and the city's decision to dismiss him. Plaintiff argued that contrary to the fealty owed him by the city attorney, the attorney embarrassed and humiliated him by threatening cross-examination at a municipal hearing concerning his suspension of the city's police chief, and by signing a disparaging letter and press release calling for his resignation. Plaintiff claimed compensation for personal anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, and nightmares resulting from the city attorney's actions. The trial court determined that the city attorney owed plaintiff no fiduciary duty beyond the attorney's duty to the city. The Supreme Court held that trial court was correct in construing the city charter as obligating the city attorney to represent the city's interests only. The "essential" question on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the city attorney was obligated "to act for or give advice for the benefit" of Plaintiff personally either as an ally, or a neutral, in the Plaintiff's employment dispute with the city. "Absent any language to that effect in the charter, or some evidence that the attorney otherwise entered upon such a role on behalf of Plaintiff, the answer remains no." View "Handverger v. City of Winooski and O'Brien" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeremy Robitaille appealed his conditional guilty plea to assault and robbery, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Defendant maintained that statements he made to police were taken in violation of his rights under the Public Defender Act (PDA) and the Vermont Constitution. He also asserted that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Defendant was arrested in Burlington following an assault and robbery at the Enosburg Pharmacy. An officer met Defendant at the police station and informed him of his Miranda rights. Defendant invoked his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, and all conversation between the officer and defendant ceased. The officer did not contact a public defender immediately thereafter, and Defendant did not ask for an attorney by name. While arrangements were being made to transfer Defendant to a correctional facility, the advising officer conversed with another police officer about a third officer's pregnancy. Defendant was a few feet away, but none of the conversation was directed at or concerned him. Defendant asked if anyone else was going to be arrested and a few other questions before offering to talk to the officers about the incident at the pharmacy. The officer again informed Defendant of his Miranda rights and asked if he wanted a lawyer present. Defendant stated that he did not. The officer provided Defendant with a written waiver form. Based on these and other findings, the court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The trial court specifically rejected the notion that the officer had induced defendant to speak. Finding that the record supported the trial court's finding that defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision to deny the motion to suppress. View "Vermont v. Robitaille" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joshua Handverger, the former city manager of the City of Winooski, appealed a trial court's dismissal of his claim for extraordinary relief against the City under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 and a related wage claim for double damages under 21 V.S.A. 347. Plaintiff argued that the Winooski City Council improperly terminated his employment by failing to give him a public hearing between fifteen and thirty days after the city council voted to dismiss him, as provided in the Winooski City Charter. The trial court ruled that since the charter explicitly bars judicial review of any action suspending or removing the city manager, Plaintiff was not entitled to review of the City’s action under Rule 75. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and therefore affirmed its decision. View "Handverger v. City of Winooski and O'Brien" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court's interlocutory order that granted Defendant Bruce Carrolton's motion to merge two counts of lewd-and-lascivious conduct into one. Relying on "State v. Perillo," (649 A.2d 566 (1994)), which involved facts very similar to this case, the trial court ruled that because the alleged offensive touching occurred continuously without any intervening act over a short period of time, the State could not charge defendant with multiple counts of lewd-and-lascivious conduct. Recognizing that the Supreme Court's holding in "Perillo" governed this case, the State on appeal asks the Court to overrule "Perillo" and hold that the touching of two distinct intimate parts of the body are two separate offenses as a matter of law. The Court declined to overrule "Perillo" and accordingly, affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "Vermont v. Carrolton" on Justia Law