Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendants Peter Williams and Peter Boissoneault brought a consolidated appeal of the criminal court’s denial of motions to exclude evidence filed in their respective driving under the influence, third offense (DUI-3) prosecutions. They argued the trial court erred in declining to suppress their evidentiary breath test results as gathered pursuant to a warrantless search in violation of Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the court correctly determined that these tests satisfied the consent exception to Article 11’s warrant requirement, and therefore affirmed. View "Vermont v. Williams" on Justia Law

Damon Petrie appealed the family division’s denial of his motion to dismiss his ex-wife, Angela Blake’s, attempt to enforce a judgment she obtained in their divorce action. Petrie claimed enforcement of the judgment was barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the judgment was not renewed within the required time. In denying the motion, the family division found Blake had complied with the family division rules for enforcement proceedings and with 12 V.S.A. 506. It then granted Petrie’s motion for interlocutory appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed that Petrie’s motion to dismiss should have been granted and therefore reversed and entered judgment in his favor. View "Blake v. Petrie" on Justia Law

Defendant Raymond Harrington appealed the issuance of a relief-from-abuse order requiring him to have no contact with and stay a hundred feet away from plaintiff Melissa Scheffler (his sister), her residence, and their mother’s home. The trial court issued the order because it concluded that defendant stalked plaintiff, within the meaning of 12 V.S.A. 5131, by driving by her home on multiple occasions and honking his horn, which the court found constituted surveillance. On appeal, defendant argued his actions did not amount to surveillance because surveillance requires “an intent to engage in a close watch or observation.” To this, the Supreme Court agreed and reversed, because, based on the trial court’s findings, there was no evidence defendant was closely watching or observing plaintiff. View "Scheffler v. Harrington" on Justia Law

Parents appealed the termination of their rights in A.M. and G.M., ages five and four. Parents struggled with substance abuse and were incarcerated periodically during the underlying proceedings. In January 2018, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) filed a petition alleging the children were in need of care or supervision (CHINS) based on parental neglect, including squalid living conditions, and parental substance-abuse concerns. The children were initially placed with their maternal grandmother pursuant to a conditional custody order (CCO), and then with mother pursuant to a CCO. In April 2018, with parents’ agreement, custody of the children was transferred to DCF. Parents stipulated that the children were CHINS, and following a June 2018 disposition hearing, the parties stipulated to continued DCF custody and to DCF’s disposition case plan, which contemplated reunification by November 2018 or adoption. Parents were required to take various action steps to achieve reunification. The children did not see mother after June 2018 and they stopped seeing father before that time. As of September 2018, the children were placed together in the same foster home. Appealing the ultimate termination of the parental rights to their children, Parents challenged the trial court's treatment of voluntary guardianship petitions filed during the pendency of the juvenile proceedings. Mother also argued the court erred in terminating her rights. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed termination. View "In re A.M. & G.M." on Justia Law

Juvenile A.P. appealed an adjudication of delinquency based on “open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior” under 13 V.S.A. section 2601. Juvenile argued: (1) the evidence did not support a finding that his conduct was open or gross; (2) section 2601 was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable against him; and (3) section 2601 was unconstitutionally vague. The incident giving rise to the adjudication at issue here dated back to 2018, when Juvenile approached the complainant in the hallway of school. Complainant testified: “[A]ll of a sudden, he asked if he could touch my breasts, and then he just reached out, and his hand was on me.” No one else was present, although school was in session. When juvenile touched complainant’s breast with his hand, she turned around and ran. She was furious and upset. Juvenile testified that he reached out his hand toward complainant’s chest but never touched it. He testified that he regretted disregarding complainant’s feelings and felt his actions were “disgusting.” The family court found complainant to be credible. It concluded that juvenile had touched her breast and in doing so had committed a delinquent act. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded the court’s findings were supported by the record. The Court further concluded the statute unambiguously proscribes the type of conduct at issue here, and accordingly affirmed the judgment. View "In re A.P., Juvenile" on Justia Law

Vermont National Telephone Company (VNT) appealed the state Commissioner of Taxes’ determination that, pursuant to Department of Taxes Regulation section 1.5833-1, the capital gain VNT earned from the 2013 sale of two Federal Communications Commission telecommunications licenses was subject to Vermont Tax. Additionally, VNT argued the penalty the Commissioner assessed for VNT's failure to report the 2013 sale violated 32 V.S.A. section 3202(b)(3) and the state and federal Constitutions. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Commissioner. View "Vermont National Telephone Company v. Department of Taxes" on Justia Law

In prior proceedings, the Vermont Supreme Court remanded this case involving Alpine Haven, a residential development in the Towns of Montgomery and Westfield, Vermont. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of the basis upon which the Alpine Haven Property Owners Association, Inc. (AHPOA) could bill plaintiffs for services that AHPOA provided. The trial court determined that those plaintiffs who owned “Chalet Lots” were required by their deeds to pay AHPOA a reasonable fee for road maintenance, snowplowing, and garbage removal; those plaintiffs who owned “Large Lots” were required by statute and equitable principles to contribute to AHPOA’s road maintenance costs. The court concluded plaintiffs failed to show any material factual dispute regarding the reasonableness or accuracy of AHPOA’s fees. It thus ordered plaintiffs to pay AHPOA’s annual assessments between 2011 and 2018. Plaintiffs challenged this decision on appeal. But finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Khan et al. v. v. Alpine Haven Property Owners' Assn., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Stephens appealed after he was convicted by jury of attempted sexual assault. On appeal, he argued: (1) the State’s evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the offense charged in the State’s information, and the trial court’s instruction permitted the jury to convict him for conduct not charged by the State; (2) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of an alleged prior sexual encounter between defendant and the complainant; (3) the court erred by allowing the State to present evidence of flight as consciousness of guilt and by not giving the jury a precautionary instruction on the limited probative value of that evidence; (4) the conviction must be vacated because the criminal case was not disposed of within the time frame set forth in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD); and (5) the court erred by not granting him a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Homeowner Edward Deptula appealed pro se a judgment in favor of plaintiff Alpine Haven Property Owners’ Association, Inc. (AHPOA) and third-party defendants Estate of Robert Gensburg and Gensburg & Greaves, PLLC (collectively Gensburg) in a long-running dispute over homeowner fees. AHPOA’s billing was based either on voluntary membership in AHPOA, or a homeowner’s obligation by deed and/or equity to pay for certain services that AHPOA provided. AHPOA owns and maintains a 4.5-mile road network within Alpine Haven, which almost all owners need to access their properties. AHPOA is also responsible for the streetlights, snowplowing, and garbage disposal within Alpine Haven. Deptula purchased a chalet lot in 1972. He has repeatedly refused to pay AHPOA’s annual assessments and those of AHPOA’s predecessor-in-interest and assignor, Leisure Properties. This has led to numerous collection actions. On appeal of this latest challenge to the assessments, Deptula raised numerous arguments, but finding no reversible error in the judgment in favor of AHPOA, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Alpine Haven Property Owners' Assn, Inc. v. Deptula" on Justia Law

During the certificate of need (CON) application process, applicant ACTD, LLC (operator of the Green Mountain Surgery Center (GMSC), a for-profit multi-specialty ambulatory surgery center), indicated that it initially planned to offer surgical services in five identified specialties. After the CON was issued, applicant notified the Board that in addition to these five specialties, it planned to offer plastic surgery and ophthalmology procedures. The Board chose to review these changes and, after hearing, issued a decision clarifying that the original CON was limited in scope to the five specialties applicant had identified in its application, and that the proposed addition of plastic surgery and ophthalmology procedures was a nonmaterial change to the project. The Board concluded that applicant had demonstrated a need for greater access to plastic surgery and ophthalmology procedures currently performed in a hospital setting and approved the addition of these services. However, it rejected applicant’s proposal to offer ophthalmology procedures already available at another ambulatory surgery center nearby. The Board also extended applicant’s implementation reporting period for two additional years. Applicant argued on appeal of the Board's decision that the Board improperly restricted the scope of the CON and lacked the power to extend the reporting requirement. Finding that the Board acted within its authority, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "In re ACTD LLC, d/b/a The Green Mountain Surgery Center" on Justia Law