Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed Superior Court decisions to seal certain portions of competency reports prepared in connection with court ordered competency evaluations of Anthony Gotavaskas and Grant Bercik, defendants in two separate criminal cases. Gotavaskas was charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling in one docket and providing false information and operation without the owner’s consent in a second docket. At his arraignment, Gotavaskas raised the issue of his competency and the trial court ordered a competency evaluation. A competency evaluation concluded that Gotavaskas was competent to stand trial. The State offered the competency evaluation into evidence, contending that the entire report should be admitted under 13 V.S.A. 4816(e). Gotavaskas did not contest the competency finding, but he objected to the admission of the entire report and offered a redacted version excluding portions he claimed were not relevant. The State disagreed, contending that because the evaluating doctor relied upon all of the information in the report as a basis for his opinion, the entire report should be admitted for its relevancy on the issue of Gotavaskas’ competency. The court redacted the competency report to include only information regarding the evaluator’s impressions of Gotavaskas and specific findings as to competence. Bercik was charged with simple assault. He was arraigned and pled not guilty. Several months after arraignment, Bercik filed a motion for competency and sanity evaluations, which the court granted. A competency evaluation concluded that Bercik was incompetent to stand trial. A competency hearing was held, at which time the State sought a finding of incompetency and the admission of the entirety of the evaluator’s report. Although Bercik agreed that there should be a lack of competency finding, he opposed the admittance of the entire report, requesting that the court temporarily seal the report. The court made a finding of incompetency and received the evaluator’s report under seal, deferring ruling on the admission of the report pending further briefing by the parties. Although not admitted in evidence, the court based its finding of incompetence upon the conclusions contained in the report. In review of these cases, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not make specific findings on the record as to a threshold question: “the statute contemplates that some portions of a competency report might not be relevant, and thus not required to be admitted, it does not suggest that any other application of ‘relevance’ should be used in considering what portions of a competency report are relevant for competency purposes other than that which is set forth in V.R.E. 401, the test for relevancy in Vermont courts. Whatever standard the trial court used here, it did not apply a V.R.E. 401 analysis to its decision on what portions of the reports to admit and what portions to exclude. It should have done so.” The cases were remanded for the trial court to make findings pursuant to V.R.E. 401. View "Vermont v. Gotavaskas" on Justia Law

Defendant Eric Manning was charged with possession of cocaine following a traffic stop. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the investigative detention, arguing that it was the result of an unlawful search and seizure that exceeded the scope of the suspended license investigation in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. He also moved to suppress statements made before the officer advised him of his Miranda rights, arguing that the questioning outside his vehicle amounted to a custodial interrogation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to suppress, and affirmed his conviction. View "Vermont v. Manning" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Perry appealed the trial court's issuance of a mittimus ordering the Department of Corrections (DOC) not to give defendant credit for time served in connection with prior convictions. The State did not challenge defendant's claim that the mittimus violated the parties' plea agreement and created an illegal sentence, but argued that because defendant has completed the time-to-serve portion of his sentence, this appeal was moot. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the appeal was not moot because defendant was still serving the challenged sentence, and that the amended mittimus violated Vermont's sentencing statute. View "Vermont v. Perry" on Justia Law

Petitioner's state-appointed counsel filed an untimely notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of petitioner's first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. It was uncontested that by failing to timely file a notice of appeal, counsel performed well below any recognized standard of care. The Supreme Court has held previously that where counsel negligently fails to perfect an appeal, the defendant has not knowingly and intelligently waived the appeal "there is per se ineffective counsel." The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether petitioner had a remedy for his counsel's failure to perfect his PCR appeal. Petitioner argued that his first PCR should be reinstated because the statutory right to PCR counsel includes a minimal level of competence, which was plainly violated in this case. The State supported petitioner's request to reverse the trial court and reinstate the first appeal. "Because this case presents an egregious example of injustice," the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the superior court with directions that petitioner's initial PCR be reinstated with a renewed opportunity for petitioner to file a notice of appeal. View "In re Babson" on Justia Law

The question in this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether, in response to a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition, the court erred in vacating petitioner Nick Manosh’s 1992 conviction for a misdemeanor count of driving under the influence (DUI) based on the sentencing court’s failure to comply with Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in taking petitioner’s no-contest plea. The State appealed, arguing that the PCR court failed to take into account petitioner’s written waiver of his Rule 11 rights, and that the sentencing court’s colloquy substantially complied with Rule 11. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Manosh" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts arising from the same alleged incident: (1) violation of a term of a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order that required him to remain at least three hundred feet from his girlfriend and her residence; and (2) violation of a condition of release from an earlier criminal charge that prohibited him from contacting his girlfriend. Defendant appealed the jury verdict that he violated the temporary RFA order and violated conditions of release imposed. Defendant raises two unrelated questions for review: (1) the denial of his motion for mistrial; and (2) the validity of one of his probation conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed with respect to defendant's arguments on appeal, but remanded the case for the trial court to consider the parties’ stipulation with regard to defendant’s sentence. View "Vermont v. Pettitt" on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Spaulding appealed his conviction on domestic assault charges. The issues on appeal centered on the admission of the complainant’s written statement as past recollection recorded and claims of insufficiency of the evidence and improper closing argument. The Supreme Court reversed on the admission of the written statement as hearsay, concluding that the admission was not harmless to defendant's case. View "Vermont v. Spaulding" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Provost appealed the decision of the criminal division that he violated his probation when he refused to admit the offense and failed to complete a domestic violence program in a timely manner, and engaged in threatening behavior while attempting to sign up for the program eight months after his conviction. Defendant argued that the original one-year fixed term of probation expired during the pendency of this appeal, excusing him from the consequences of any subsequent violations. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that the record supported the trial court’s determination that defendant violated the terms of his probation by his delay in enrolling in and completing the domestic violence program. View "Vermont v. Provost" on Justia Law

On the evening of September 9, 2009, the complainant was walking home along Colchester Avenue in Burlington when an unknown man attacked her and tried to force her into the cab of a pickup truck that was parked alongside the road. He punched her repeatedly in the face and she fell to the ground. He pinned her to the ground with his knee. She started screaming. At one point he shoved his finger into her mouth and she bit him. He got up and she managed to escape. She ran to a nearby house and rang doorbells until someone let her in. The assailant drove off in a truck. Police and an ambulance arrived soon afterwards. Several people witnessed the event and offered descriptions of the assailant and the truck to police. While the assailant’s truck was parked on the side of the road, a Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) bus passed by. Two video cameras attached to the bus captured images of the assailant’s truck at the location identified by the complainant. Defendant Harold Porter, Jr. was arrested and charged with attempted kidnapping, aggravated assault, and unlawful restraint. The latter two charges were eventually dismissed by the State. Defendant’s first trial in July 2011 ended in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. A second jury trial in March 2012 resulted in a guilty verdict. Defendant was sentenced to serve thirty years to life. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to grant a motion for a new trial because the prosecution failed to disclose important expert testimony; (2) in admitting the testimony of police officers that they had ruled out other suspects based on interviews with out-of-court declarants; (3) in admitting eyewitness identification testimony; (4) in failing to dismiss the case for failure to preserve and test potentially exculpatory evidence; and (5) in excluding the testimony of defendant’s expert on police procedures. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the investigating officers had no basis upon which to offer admissible testimony that the information they received from some of the witnesses met the personal knowledge requirement of Rule of Evidence 602. Consequently, admission of the officers' testimony was prejudicial to defendant. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on this ground. View "Vermont v. Porter, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant Yetha Lumumba is a native of the Democratic Republic of Congo. He immigrated to the United States in 2004, where he became a legal permanent resident. In 2012, defendant, then a student at the University of Vermont (UVM), was convicted of sexual assault of a fellow student. In June of 2010, defendant and the victim, J.B, met up for a bike ride to a Burlington beach which ended in sex that J.B. felt was nonconsensual. Several months later, J.B. reported the incident and defendant was subsequently charged with sexual assault against J.B. After a three-day jury trial, defendant was found guilty and received a sentence of eight years to life in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred: (1) in allowing a clinical psychologist to give expert testimony about common reactions and behaviors of rape victims in between J.B.’s testimony and the defense’s cross-examination of J.B.; (2) in not permitting defense counsel to have J.B. look over transcripts of her prior testimony during cross-examination to determine whether she had made a prior inconsistent statement; and (3) in admitting hearsay testimony from a UVM police officer who met with J.B. Defendant also challenged his sentence, arguing that his immigration status prevented him from meeting Vermont’s statutory requirement for sex-offender counseling prior to release from incarceration, thereby effectively sentencing him to a disproportionately harsh punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, but reversed on sentencing. The trial court did not have an obligation to reduce the sentence awarded in consideration of imminent deportation upon release from prison, but it did have an obligation under Vermont’s individualized sentencing process to examine defendant’s case and to consider the consequences of his particular situation in fashioning a sentence. Stating that it did not care to understand these consequences was a failure of this obligation and an abuse of discretion; awarding a sentence range of which the only evidence presented at sentencing indicated was not likely to be a range at all required more from the court in the way of findings than the court provided. Because the Supreme Court reversed on these grounds, it did not reach defendant’s Eighth Amendment claim. View "Vermont v. Lumumba" on Justia Law