Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with aggravated murder and two counts of murder in the second degree in the deaths of two men. Plaintiff was the estate of one of the deceased men, which brought a wrongful death action on behalf of the next of kin. In its filing, plaintiff obtained an attachment freezing defendant’s assets, including the retainer she provided for her criminal defense. In an interlocutory appeal, the issue presented for the Supreme Court’s review was whether the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel was violated when the plaintiff in a civil wrongful death action attaches funds the defendant intends to use for her legal defense to homicide charges stemming from the death at issue in the civil case. Defendant appealed a trial court decision permitting such an attachment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Estate of Jamis Lott v. O'Neill" on Justia Law

In September 2014, defendant Lamar Scales was tried and convicted of three felony counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child that occurred between June 1, 2004 and June 1, 2006. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting consciousness-of-guilt evidence and then failing to give a limiting instruction on the use of that evidence and that the prosecutor's closing argument violated the "golden rule" by asking the jurors to put themselves in the position of a party - here, the purported victim. Vermont has recognized the impropriety of an appeal to jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim: "A golden rule argument-which asks ‘jurors to place themselves in the position of a party'-is ‘universally condemned' because it encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on evidence." The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, finding the prosecutor's statements "exceeded the bounds of fair and temperate discussion, circumscribed by the evidence and inferences properly drawn therefrom." View "Vermont v. Scales" on Justia Law

Consolidated cases required the Vermont Supreme Court to revisit whether Vermont law recognized a cause of action for private nuisance based solely on aesthetic considerations. Appellants, a group of landowners from New Haven, appealed when the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, two solar energy companies. The landowners filed suit after their neighbors leased property to the solar companies for the purpose of constructing commercial solar arrays. According to the landowners, the solar arrays constituted a private nuisance because they negatively affected the surrounding area's rural aesthetic, causing properties in their vicinity to lose value. The trial court consolidated the cases and, noting that the Vermont Supreme Court's precedent in "Hager" barred nuisance actions based purely on aesthetics, and granted summary judgment to the solar companies. The Supreme Court upheld Vermont's long-standing rule barring private nuisance actions based upon aesthetic disapproval alone. View "Myrick v. Peck Electric Company" on Justia Law

Mother appealed a superior court decision denying her motion to set aside a previous order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, P.K. Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights in the same proceeding in which she entered into a postadoption-contact agreement with P.K.’s paternal grandmother, with whom the child had been placed by the Department for Children and Families (DCF). After DCF removed P.K. from the paternal grandmother’s home and placed her with another pre-adoptive foster family, mother moved to set aside the termination order. The trial court found that mother agreed, at the termination hearing, that "all parties agreed that it was in P.K.’s best interest that custody be transferred to DCF, without limitation as to adoption." Mother argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the superior court erred by not employing available legal remedies to safeguard her ongoing relationship with P.K., which the court necessarily found to be in P.K.'s best interest in approving the postadoption-contact agreement. She contended that relief was available based on changed circumstances, in this case, the changed circumstances of the paternal grandmother's removal as a preadoptive parent. Finding no reversible error in the superior court’s denial of mother’s motion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re P.K." on Justia Law

Petitioners Representative Donald Turner, Jr. and Senator Joseph Benning, sought to enjoin respondent Governor Peter Shumlin (whose last day in office was January 5, 2017), from appointing a successor to the office held by Associate Justice John Dooley, whose term was set to expire April 1, 2017. Justice Dooley did not file a declaration with the Office of the Secretary of State indicating that he would seek retention for another term beyond March 31, 2017, the last day of his then-current six-year term. On December 21, 2016, Representative Turner filed a petition for quo warranto contesting the Governor's authority to appoint Justice Dooley's successor, asserting that although the Vermont Constitution authorized the Governor to fill a vacancy on the Court, no vacancy would exist until Justice Dooley left office nearly three months after Governor Shumlin left his office. The Supreme Court concluded that the Vermont Constitution did not authorize the Governor to appoint an Associate Justice in anticipation of a vacancy that was not expected to occur until the expiration of the justice's term of office, which would occur months after the Governor left office. "In so holding, we emphasize that our decision today rests entirely upon the meaning and purpose of the Vermont Constitution. We reach our decision having in mind the overarching principles of our democracy: the integrity of our governing institutions and the people's confidence in them. The particular identity of the parties or potential nominees to the Office of Associate Justice have no bearing on our decision. Our sole responsibility in this, as in any, case is to apply the law evenhandedly, regardless of the identity of the litigants, the sensitivity of the issues, or the passing political interests of the moment." View "Turner v. Shumlin" on Justia Law

The superior court certified a question of law for the Vermont Supreme Court’s review in connection with the prosecution of defendant Geoffrey King. Specifically, the court and parties asked the Supreme Court to determine what legal standard the superior court should apply to determine whether the State’s approximately three-year delay in bringing charges against defendant violated defendant’s due process rights under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions. Defendant was accused of sexual assault. The Supreme Court concluded that, to establish the State’s pre-accusation delay violated a defendant’s due process rights under either the U.S. Constitution or the Vermont Constitution, the defendant had to demonstrate actual substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or to advance some other impermissible purpose that violates fundamental conceptions of justice. Because defendant failed to meet either prong of this standard, the Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. View "Vermont v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant Tristan Cameron appealed his conviction for grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle resulting in the death of a passenger. He argued on appeal that there was not enough evidence to convict him, that testimony regarding his marijuana use should have been excluded, that prejudicial juror discussions occurred, and that the trial court’s instruction to the jury lowered the standard of proof required for conviction. Because the Vermont Supreme Court found that the State presented enough evidence to create a question for the jury, the Court affirmed on the first issue. But because, absent expert testimony, the jury was left to speculate that the State’s evidence provided the necessary link between defendant’s marijuana use and the grossly negligent operation charge, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the second issue. View "Vermont v. Cameron" on Justia Law

Mother and father separately appealed a family court judgment terminating their parental rights to the minors D.S. and W.S. Mother contended the court improperly relied on factors beyond her control in concluding that her ability to parent had stagnated. Father contended: (1) the court improperly failed to address individually whether his ability to parent the children had stagnated; (2) the evidence failed to show that he was unable to resume parenting within a reasonable time; and (3) the court violated his right to due process of law by relying on expectations not in the case plan. The Supreme Court concluded that the predicate finding that mother’s failure to progress amounted to stagnation was unsupported, and therefore that the judgment terminating mother’s parental rights was reversed. The Court agreed with father that the trial court's findings were insufficient to support a conclusion that a termination of father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Court reversed as to both parents and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re D.S. and W.S." on Justia Law

Mother and father were the parents of a daughter, born in 2009. Mother and father were never married and their relationship ended before daughter was born; daughter lived exclusively with mother for the first twenty-one months of her life. In April 2011, the parties entered into a parenting agreement, accepted by the court as an order, that gave mother sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities for daughter, subject to father's parent-child contact. Mother appealed a family court order modifying parental rights and granting father sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities for their daughter. Mother argued that the family court's decision modifying parental rights was based on erroneous facts and improper consideration of the child's bests interests and resulted from bias against her by the court. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Clark v. Bellavance" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review was found in a series of e-mails exchanged between two business partners who jointly owned a document shredding company, and whether those e-mails (read together) constituted an enforceable contract to sell one partner's interest in the company to the other partner. Defendant-seller appealed the trial court's determination that the partners had an enforceable contract and that seller was obligated to negotiate the remaining terms of the deal in good faith. He argued that there were too many open terms to produce an enforceable contract and that the partners had no intent to be bound to a contract by their e-mails. Plaintiff-buyer cross-appealed, arguing that the e-mails demonstrated an intent to be bound, and that the Supreme Court should enforce the contract. The Supreme Court rejected the buyer's argument that the parties had entered into a fully-completed contract, and agreed with the seller that there was no enforceable contract at all. The Court reversed the trial court which held to the contrary, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the seller. View "Miller v. Flegenheimer" on Justia Law