Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Nathaniel Peatman appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for first-degree aggravated domestic assault, aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. Defendant argues that his convictions must be reversed because the jury instructions failed to guarantee unanimous verdicts. The Vermont Supreme Court found that all of the alleged acts (as grounds for defendant’s convictions) took place over a span of six minutes as part of one continuous assault. From this, the Court concluded, it was clear that this case fit within the “election exception” because the acts were “inextricably intertwined” as one continuous offense. Therefore, the trial court’s initial instructions, which included a list of alleged acts that the court suggested the jury consider, and its answer to the jury question, which clarified that the jury did not have to elect specific acts and instead had to be unanimous that the element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, was not in error. “It breathed the true spirit of the law” that there is an exception to the election rule in multiple-act acts and that the evidence presented qualified this case for said exception. Thus the Court affirmed the trial court. View "Vermont v. Peatman" on Justia Law

Defendant Landon Urban appealed a trial court's imposition of probationary conditions in connection with a plea agreement. In May 2016, defendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and simple assault arising from an altercation at a mud bog event in Ferrisburgh. The arresting officer’s affidavit indicated defendant appeared extremely intoxicated when the officer spoke with him shortly after the incident. The charges were tried to a jury in September 2016, resulting in a conviction on the simple assault count. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the count alleging aggravated assault. In February 2017, the parties reached a plea agreement wherein defendant agreed to plead nolo contendere to the aggravated assault charge in exchange for concurrent sentences on both the aggravated assault and the simple assault charges. The plea agreement provided that a portion of the sentences was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for a period of two years. Defendant argued on appeal that a condition forbidding the purchase, possession, or consumption of alcohol, to which he objected at sentencing, violated public policy or was unduly restrictive. He further contended, for various reasons, that additional conditions to which he agreed in the plea agreement should be modified or vacated. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Urban" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Larkin appealed his conviction of second-degree aggravated domestic assault. Defendant argued the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of complainant’s previous conviction for providing false information to a police officer (FIPO), offered by defendant to impeach complainant, deprived defendant of a fair trial. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed the trial court erred in excluding the evidence, and that the error was not harmless. "Here, the jury was faced with the competing narratives of complainant and defendant. The outcome of the case hinged on the credibility of these two individuals, and thus we must take extra caution when analyzing the effect of the exclusion of defendant’s impeachment evidence - complainant’s FIPO conviction. . . . The jury could reasonably find that, because complainant had lied to police previously, her statements to testifying witnesses were less credible than they would have been otherwise." View "Vermont v. Larkin" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Larkin appealed his conviction of second-degree aggravated domestic assault. Defendant argued the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of complainant’s previous conviction for providing false information to a police officer (FIPO), offered by defendant to impeach complainant, deprived defendant of a fair trial. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed the trial court erred in excluding the evidence, and that the error was not harmless. "Here, the jury was faced with the competing narratives of complainant and defendant. The outcome of the case hinged on the credibility of these two individuals, and thus we must take extra caution when analyzing the effect of the exclusion of defendant’s impeachment evidence - complainant’s FIPO conviction. . . . The jury could reasonably find that, because complainant had lied to police previously, her statements to testifying witnesses were less credible than they would have been otherwise." View "Vermont v. Larkin" on Justia Law

Defendant Shawn Bellanger appealed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 13 and lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 13. On appeal, defendant raised arguments related to the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the State’s evidence, and the prosecutor’s closing argument. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Bellanger" on Justia Law

Petitioner Edwin Towne, Jr. appealed the dismissal of his tenth and eleventh petitions for post-conviction relief (PCR). In 1989, petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder. In his ninth petition, petitioner argued the 1986 traffic stop that precipitated his arrest for murder, he had ineffective assistance of counsel during both his trial and direct appeal. In the tenth and eleventh petitions, petitioner raised arguments similar to those previously raised in petitions one through nine. In March 2013, the PCR court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. With respect to petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the court concluded on the basis of the reasoning in Martinez v. Ryan, 556 U.S. 1 (2012) and Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012), that ineffectiveness of petitioner’s lawyer in his first PCR proceeding could overcome the procedural bars of successiveness and abuse of the writ to enable the court to consider the merits of petitioner’s PCR claims on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, the court concluded that petitioner had failed to establish that the first PCR court had erred in determining that his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was without merit. In September 2015, the court dismissed the eleventh petition on the basis that his claims had either already been raised and addressed on the merits in previous petitions, or they could have been raised in previous petitions. Furthermore, the court noted that “there is nothing to suggest that if trial counsel had done what [petitioner] now thinks he should have done, the result at his trial or sentencing would have been different.” The Vermont Supreme Court found that petitioner’s claims that were not addressed on the merits in earlier petitions were an abuse of the writ under any standard of review. “For that reason, our resolution of this case does not turn on whether we review the trial court’s ruling as to newly raised claims for abuse of discretion or without deference. We accordingly decline to decide at this juncture which standard governs our review of the trial court’s dismissal of claims raised in a second or subsequent PCR petition on account of abuse of the writ.” Because his various claims are either successive, an abuse of the writ, or outside the scope of the PCR statute, the Supreme Court affirmed their dismissal. View "In re Edwin A. Towne, Jr." on Justia Law

Cheryl Brown and Matthew Denis were involved in a traffic accident, when Denis’s truck bumped into Brown’s car from behind. Denis claimed the accident happened when he inadvertently took his foot off the brake as he turned to roll the rear window down to provide fresh air to his dog, who was riding in the back seat. Denis’s truck, which was positioned behind Brown’s car, rolled forward five to six feet, striking her rear bumper. The collision took place in stop-and-go traffic. Denis, a sergeant with the Vermont State Police, estimated his speed at impact to be two miles per hour and did not believe there was any damage caused to Brown’s vehicle from the collision. Brown claimed the impact caused a scratch on her rear bumper. The truck Denis was driving did not have any markings indicating it was a police vehicle. Brown filed suit against the State of Vermont alleging it was responsible for injuries she sustained in the accident due to Denis’s negligence. Brown also raised constitutional claims, alleging: (1) due process and equality of treatment violations under the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefits Clause, and (2) an equal protection, and possibly a due process, claim under the United States Constitution. Brown did not name Denis as a defendant in her suit. Brown’s constitutional claims were based on her assertion that Denis received favorable treatment because he was not prosecuted for causing the accident or leaving the scene without providing identifying information. Before trial, the court dismissed the due process and equal protection claims under the United States Constitution on the basis that Brown had only sued the State, and not Denis personally, and that the State was not a “person” for claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court further ruled that Brown lacked standing to assert any claim based on the State’s failure to prosecute Denis. The court also dismissed the Common Benefits Clause claim because Brown lacked any cognizable interest in the prosecution or discipline of Denis. Lastly, the court held that, to the extent a due process claim had been raised, it was undisputed that Brown received the information required to be exchanged in the event of a car collision shortly after the accident, and her ability to file suit against the State as a result of the accident showed her due process rights were not impeded. On appeal, Brown alleged several errors in pre-trial and trial rulings, as well as in the failure to grant her a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Defendant Philip Tetreault appealed his convictions for heroin trafficking and conspiracy to sell or deliver a regulated drug. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence gathered from his vehicle during a traffic stop. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Tetreault's convictions. View "Vermont v. Tetreault" on Justia Law

Defendant Justin Kuzawski appeals his conviction for aggravated domestic assault with a deadly weapon. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to find that he used a deadly weapon or to show that he intended to threaten the victim of his actions. While defendant was using a box cutter tool to work with boxes, six-year-old E.P. approached him and asked what he was doing. Defendant initially told her “[n]othing, none of your business.” E.P. persisted, and defendant then held the box cutter he was using next to E.P.’s stomach and told her that he would kill her in her sleep. He then laughed, and E.P. ran away. Defendant argued the box cutter involved here was not a deadly weapon. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding evidence in the record to support each of the trial court’s factual findings, and those findings in turn supported the court’s conclusion that defendant intended to threaten E.P. "There is no clear error here." View "Vermont v. Kuzawski" on Justia Law

Defendant James Carola appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw three pleas stemming from his alleged assault of his wife at their Burlington home. He argued: (1) the trial court did not allow him to withdraw his pleas even though he did not know that he would be sentenced the same day as his change-of-plea hearing and there was neither a presentence investigation nor a personal waiver of that investigation by defendant; and (2) he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea because the court erroneously participated in the plea agreement process. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Scarola" on Justia Law