Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Anthony Brunetta appealed the civil suspension of his driver’s license for driving under the influence (DUI), arguing that the criminal division erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence he alleged was obtained based on an illegal stop of his vehicle. Specifically, defendant claimed the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing to stop his car as required by the federal and state constitutions. At trial, the State played a dashboard video recording of the stop at issue, and the trooper who stopped defendant testified that he did not observe defendant use a turn signal at the intersection. On cross-examination, the trooper reiterated that defendant did not use his turn signal at the intersection, and that he would have seen the signal if defendant had used it. Defendant did not challenge the criminal division’s finding that he did not use his vehicle’s turn signal before changing direction at the intersection in question. He argued to the Vermont Supreme Court only that the state trooper had no reasonable basis to stop him without first confirming that he did not use a hand signal instead of the vehicle’s turn signal. The Supreme Court found Defendant correctly observed that 23 V.S.A. 1064(a) unambiguously allowed a driver to discharge the responsibility to signal a turn by using a hand signal rather than a mechanical or lighting signal. "But this does not mean that a law enforcement officer who is unable to see a hand signal even if one is given—whether due to darkness, weather conditions, or vantage point relative to the vehicle in question—may never form a reasonable suspicion that section 1064(a) has been violated. ... It follows that, where an officer suspects that a driver failed to signal a turn, but is unable to confirm or rule out the use of a hand signal, the officer may nonetheless have reasonable suspicion of a failure to signal sufficient to stop the car to further investigate the suspected traffic violation." View "Vermont v. Brunetta" on Justia Law

Husband appealed the parties’ final divorce order relating to property division, arguing that the family division erred by: (1) barring him from conducting discovery of a non-party concerning a trust in which wife had an interest; and (2) awarding wife a lump sum as a retroactive temporary spousal award even though wife had neither requested nor been granted temporary spousal maintenance. The Vermont Supreme Court determined: (1) the Wife's interest in the trust was not vested or subject to modification or divestment as long as Wife's father was alive, so Husband was not entitled to discovery relating to the trust; and (2) the lump-sum payment as part of the property division was "well within" the trial court's discretion, and "any error by the court in characterizing the challenged $18,000 lump-sum award as a payment in lieu of a retroactive award of temporary maintenance is harmless." Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Noble v. Noble" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Vermont had to recognize and register an Alabama order granting plaintiff father, W.H., sole physical and legal custody of juvenile M.P., who resided in Vermont and was in the custody of the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) pursuant to a Vermont court order. The family division concluded that Alabama lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate matters related to M.P.’s custody and denied the registration request. On appeal, plaintiff contended Alabama had jurisdiction under the applicable state and federal laws and that Vermont was therefore obligated to recognize and register the Alabama custody order. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "W.H. v. Department for Children and Families" on Justia Law

Robert Grundstein appealed the Vermont Board of Bar Examiners’ determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for admission to the Vermont bar in connection with his 2019 application for admission by examination. He argued that, for numerous reasons, the Board erred in evaluating his application pursuant to the Rules of Admission to the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court in effect at the time his application was submitted. After its review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the Board correctly applied the Rules and affirmed. View "In re Grundstein" on Justia Law

In 2003, Richard Howell invented a binding that has a “special, patented heel release designed to mitigate knee injuries . . . that are common in downhill skiing.” Howell formed a business relationship with John Springer-Miller, and the two signed transaction documents, which included an employment agreement, a stock-purchase agreement, an investor-rights agreement, and an amended certificate of incorporation. Howell and Springer-Miller’s working relationship “began to deteriorate almost immediately,” and the KneeBinding board voted to terminate Howell as president in September 2008. In prior proceedings, the Vermont Supreme Court in large part affirmed an August 2016 trial court decision, but reversed a decision to dissolve a March 2009 permanent injunction, and remanded the court’s award of attorney’s fees to KneeBinding, Inc. with directions to consider additional evidence of legal fees. On remand in August 2019, the trial court: (1) awarded additional attorney’s fees to KneeBinding; (2) issued a sanction for a May 23, 2018 finding that Richard Howell violated an August 10, 2017 injunction that was in place while "KneeBinding II" was pending; and (3) found Howell in contempt for violating the March 2009 permanent injunction that the Supreme Court restored in KneeBinding II. On appeal, Howell challenged the May 23, 2018, finding that he violated the August 2017 injunction and the August 2019 finding that he violated the March 2009 permanent injunction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell" on Justia Law

Ashlie Brannan appealed a trial court’s determination that Ashton Peralta was a de facto parent of A.Z. pursuant to 15C V.S.A. 501. She argued the court erred both in denying her motion to dismiss and in evaluating the factors set forth in section 501(a). Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Peralta v. Brannan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff R.L. Vallee, Inc. appealed the Environmental Division’s decision granting an Act 250 permit to the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) for a highway project involving the reconfiguration of an interstate exit. Vallee argued the court applied the incorrect standard in analyzing phosphorus discharges under Act 250 Criterion 1, and improperly evaluated the evidence of phosphorus and chloride discharges under Criterion 1. The Vermont Supreme Court found the Environmental Division applied the correct legal standard to evaluate discharges, and properly considered the evidence before it in determining that the project complies with Criterion 1. View "In re Diverging Diamond Interchange Act 250 (R.L. Vallee, Inc.)" on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Caron, Sr. appealed his conviction by jury of sexual assault–no consent. In June 2018, complainant, then thirty-four years old, reported to the Bennington Police Department that she had been sexually assaulted by defendant when she was a child. Complainant had lived with defendant and his wife - a biological relative of complainant’s - since her birth in November 1983. She had not reported any of the alleged sexual assaults involving the defendant to the police before June 2018. On appeal, defendant argued the statute of limitations governing the sexual-assault charge against him had expired prior to the commencement of the prosecution, and thus the charge should have been dismissed. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed with defendant that his prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations and therefore vacated his conviction and sentence. View "Vermont v. Caron" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the family division’s decision declining to adjudicate her a de facto parent of J.F. pursuant to 15C V.S.A. 501(b). The family division found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence four of the seven factors outlined in section 501 to be recognized as a de facto parent, namely that the person seeking de facto parentage: “undertook full and permanent responsibilities of a parent of the child without expectation of financial compensation”; held out the child as their own; “established a bonded and dependent relationship with the child that is parental in nature;” and that “continuing the relationship between the person and the child is in the best interests of the child.” Plaintiff argued on appeal of the Vermont Supreme Court that she proved the above-mentioned factors by clear and convincing evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the family division’s decision. View "Lanfear v. Ruggerio & Fennimore" on Justia Law

Defendant Morris Nelson appealed his convictions for: (1) repeated aggravated sexual assault as part of a common scheme and plan; (2) sexual assault of a victim under the age of eighteen entrusted to his care by authority of law; and (3) sexual exploitation of a minor. He argued that the second charge was duplicative with both the first and third charges, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; that the State’s evidence on the second charge was insufficient to prove the victim was entrusted to his care by authority of law; and that the jury instruction on the first charge constituted plain error because the court failed to give a unanimity instruction. Regarding defendant’s first argument, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that only the second and third charges were duplicative. Accordingly, the sexual-exploitation charge was vacated as requested by the State in the event the Court found the second and third charges duplicative. The Court rejected defendant’s other arguments and thus upheld the convictions on the sexual-assault and aggravated-sexual-assault charges. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court determined a remand for resentencing was not warranted. View "Vermont v. Nelson" on Justia Law