Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Joseph Bruyette appealed an order compelling him to provide a DNA sample for inclusion in the Vermont DNA database. Defendant was convicted of one count of burglary and three counts of sexual assault in 1990. He has been continuously incarcerated in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) since 1987. For most of this time, defendant has been held in facilities out of state. In 1998, the Vermont Legislature passed a law creating a state DNA database. Defendant’s convictions qualified as designated crimes under the law, so the statute required him to submit a DNA sample. He argued 20 V.S.A. 1933(b) excused him from providing a DNA sample because he has previously provided a sample. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of defendant’s position that the statute exempted him from providing a subsequent sample. View "Vermont v. Bruyette" on Justia Law

Earl Scott appealed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the State of Vermont concerning his claim for compensation under the Vermont Innocence Protection Act (VIPA). In April 2010, Scott was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a person under the age of sixteen. Scott was twenty-two at the time the charges were filed. The offenses were alleged to have occurred “sometime during 2003 or 2004.” Subsequently, Scott pleaded guilty to an amended charge of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and was sentenced to two to five years’ incarceration. He began serving his sentence in January 2012. While in custody under sentence, Scott brought a claim for post-conviction relief (PCR) in civil court. The claim was later amended to assert that the plea colloquy did not comply with the requirements of Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 11(f) and that his criminal counsel was ineffective on several other grounds. While the PCR claim was pending, Scott reached his maximum sentence date and was released in March 2016. In May 2016, the State conceded Scott’s plea colloquy did not comply with Rule 11 and that his conviction should be vacated, resulting in the remand of the prosecution to the criminal division. Scott’s counsel submitted a proposed order vacating the criminal conviction in June 2016, providing Scott with a copy. Also, while the PCR claim was pending, Scott learned he had not been given proper credit for good time and had therefore served time beyond his actual maximum release date. He made a claim seeking compensation for the time he remained in jail beyond that point. In July 2016, with knowledge that his criminal conviction was going to be vacated, Scott signed a general release of claims against the State in exchange for $40,000. Scott filed the lawsuit at issue here, seeking recovery under the VIPA. The State moved for summary judgment, arguing the general release barred Scott’s claim. Alternatively, the State contended Scott was not entitled to relief because he was not “actually innocent,” and he either fabricated evidence or committed perjury during proceedings related to the charged offense. In ruling on the motion, the court held that the language of the release was unambiguous, and that it plainly operated to preclude Scott’s claim. The court also determined that, even setting aside the general release, plaintiff’s action could not proceed because he did not meet the VIPA’s actual-innocence requirement. It did not reach the State’s alternative argument. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s order, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the State. View "Scott v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Defendant Jonathan Richards appealed after he was convicted by jury conviction on one count of misdemeanor unlawful trespass. He argued the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime, contending that 13 V.S.A. 3705(a) should have an implied mental state requirement, or knowledge element. Defendant also argued the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the probation condition that he not “engage in criminal behavior” because the condition was impermissibly vague. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the Vermont Legislature intentionally omitted a knowledge element in the misdemeanor unlawful trespass statute, and that the probation condition provided sufficient notice of proscribed conduct. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Vermont v. Richards" on Justia Law

Petitioner Clayton Turner was convicted of absconding from furlough twice, once in November 2001 and once in January 2009. In June 2011, petitioner was charged with second-degree aggravated domestic assault, with a habitual-offender enhancement that was based in part on the two earlier absconding-from-furlough convictions. Petitioner left the state and was not arrested on the domestic-assault charge until November 2018. He was arraigned and held without bail. In December 2019, petitioner filed petitions to expunge the two absconding-from- furlough convictions, arguing, in relevant part, that he was entitled to expungement of those convictions under the terms of Vermont’s expungement statute because the Legislature had recently decriminalized absconding from furlough. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that expungement of petitioner’s prior escape convictions was not available to him under the governing law; accordingly, it affirmed the criminal division’s decision. View "Vermont v. Turner" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeremy Lambert appealed his conviction on two counts of sexual assault against a minor, M.M. He argued: (1) the trial court erred in admitting statements he made to police detectives because they failed to read him Miranda warnings and his statements were not given voluntarily; and (2) the court infringed upon his right to a fair trial and to present a defense when it limited his cross-examination of M.M.’s mother and precluded two witnesses from testifying about statements allegedly made by M.M’s mother. Because defendant was not in custody for the purposes of a Miranda warning, gave his statements to the detectives voluntarily, and failed to preserve his evidentiary claims, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Lambert" on Justia Law

Petitioner Michael Lewis appealed the trial court’s summary judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) of his 2009 convictions and accompanying habitual-offender sentence enhancement. He argued: (1) his plea to the 2005 false-pretenses charge used to support the 2009 habitual-offender enhancement lacked a factual basis; (2) three of his 2009 convictions were invalid because he did not verbally enter a plea; and (3) the PCR court erred in refusing to address some of his claims. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded petitioner waived a potential collateral challenge to use of the 2005 predicate conviction to enhance his 2009 sentence when he pled guilty to the habitual-offender enhancement in 2009; considering the plea colloquy as a whole, the court’s failure to elicit a verbal plea contemporaneous with the court’s review of three of the 2009 charges did not invalidate his convictions on those charges; and the PCR court did not err in declining to address additional claims raised by petitioner in argument but omitted from his amended petition. Thus, judgment was affirmed. View "In re Michael Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Hale appealed a trial court decision denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on his charge of possessing brass knuckles with the intent to use them. He argued that although he possessed brass knuckles, the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of his intent to use them. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Hale" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Bourgoin was convicted by jury on five counts of second-degree murder, one count of grossly negligent operation, and one count of operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent. The charges stemmed from a tragic incident during which defendant drove the wrong way on the interstate and crashed into a car, killing five teenagers, before fleeing the scene in a police cruiser, returning to the scene shortly thereafter by again driving the wrong way on the interstate, and crashing into the wreckage. Defendant, who asserted insanity and diminished-capacity defenses at trial, argued he was entitled to reversal of his murder convictions because the State failed to prove the intent element of second-degree murder and the trial court erred in admitting undisclosed testimony and in instructing the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Bourgoin" on Justia Law

Defendant Jospeh Blanchard was convicted by jury for criminal threatening and impeding a public officer. The charges arose after a dark and rainy night in April 2018, when a police officer pulled defendant's car over with a burned-out passenger-side headlight. Defendant asked the officer why he was pulled over, and whether he was suspected of a crime. After some back and forth in which defendant asserted that there was no reason to stop him, defendant gave the officer his license, insurance and car registration papers. Upon reviewing the registration and insurance documents, the officer observed both were out-of-date, with the registration expiring in 2016. Defendant told the officer he did not have to have registration or insurance and that it was his constitutional right to travel, and he asked to speak with the officer's supervisor. Upon the supervisor's arrival, and after speaking with defendant for approximately thirty-seven minutes, both officers informed defendant they were going to ground his vehicle in the parking lot because of his defective equipment and outdated registration and insurance. Defendant resisted, stating he would defend himself, and claimed he had an AR-15 rifle in the car. The supervisor testified defendant did not appear to be joking and that he believed he was in jeopardy. After several more minutes of the supervisor telling defendant that he could not drive the car and defendant responding that he could and that he had not committed a crime, defendant attempted to open the driver’s-side door to his car. The supervisor pushed the door closed before defendant could get back in. In this time, two other officers arrived at the scene. Defendant again attempted to open the door; the supervisor pushed the door shut and placed defendant under arrest for impeding an officer. On appeal, defendant argued insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction, and that the jury instructions in impeding an officer were impermissibly vague and overbroad and failed to guarantee unanimity. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Blanchard" on Justia Law

Defendant Max Misch was charged under 13 V.S.A. 4021(a) with two counts of unlawfully possessing a large-capacity magazine. This issue this appeal presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review was whether Vermont’s ban on large- capacity magazines (LCMs) violated the right to bear arms under Chapter I, Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution. To this, the Supreme Court concluded the magazine ban was a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense, and therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him. View "Vermont v. Misch" on Justia Law