Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of sexual assault. He appealed that conviction, arguing that his case should have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds and that he was entitled to a new trial based on statements made in closing argument by the prosecution. While defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial at the appropriate time, the Supreme Court concluded that that right must be balanced with the facts that he was out on bail for the entire period of delay and has identified few specific claims of prejudice. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial. Moreover, the prosecutor’s statements did not rise to the level of fundamental misconduct required by the "plain error" standard. View "Vermont v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The State of Vermont appealed the superior court’s reversal of the Vermont Parole Board’s decision to revoke Edwin Rodriguez’s parole. On appeal, the State argued: (1) the court erred in weighing the evidence and assessing witness credibility when reviewing the parole board’s decision, and (2) erred in concluding that the parole violation was not established by a preponderance of the evidence. After review of the Parole Board record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the decision. View "Rodriguez v. Vermont Parole Board" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Aubuchon appealed the superior court’s denial of his request under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 for additional credit toward his aggregated minimum sentence. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Vermont v. Aubuchon" on Justia Law

The State appealed the grant of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on his civil driver's license suspension. The trial court held that the State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 0.08 or above at the time he operated a motor vehicle. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Vermont v. Nugent" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the issue before the Supreme Court presented centered on whether the same prior conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) could serve both to criminalize a refusal to submit to an evidentiary blood-alcohol test under 23 V.S.A. 1201(b) and to enhance the penalty for that offense under 23 V.S.A. 1210. The trial court held that the statute prohibited such dual use, and the State appealed that decision.  After careful consideration of the two cases, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the plain language of the statute allowed the same prior DUI conviction to be used both as an element of criminal refusal and to enhance the penalty for the refusal. View "Vermont v. Wainwright" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Thomas and Marie Baptie, administrators of the estate of their son, John Baptie, appealed a superior court's decision granting defendant and former police officer Aron McNeil, summary judgment dismissing their negligence case against him. Specifically, plaintiffs argued the officer was liable for the death of their son as the result of the negligent investigation of their complaint against defendant Jonathon Bruno, the man who murdered their son four days after they made a complaint. The Supreme Court agreed with the superior court's conclusions that defendant was entitled to qualified official immunity from plaintiffs' lawsuit and that, they could not prove all of the elements of their negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims. View "Baptie v. Bruno" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the civil suspension of his driver's license and the admission of the breath-test results in his criminal prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI). Defendant contended on appeal that because the test results were obtained after the testing machine registered a "fatal error," the breath-test analysis did not meet the requisite performance standards, and thus the necessary foundation for admissibility was not laid. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying suppression in the criminal case, but reversed and remanded the civil suspension. View "Vermont v. Burnett" on Justia Law

Defendant Edward Johnson appealed his convictions for attempted aggravated murder, kidnapping, lewd and lascivious conduct, unlawful trespass, and enhancement under Vermont's habitual offender statute. On appeal, he argue: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when a member of the jury pool mentioned in front of prospective jurors that defendant had another case; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant's identity as the perpetrator or that he had the requisite intent to kill. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the superior court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. He contended the court erred in failing to award credit for time served. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court's decision and granted defendant credit against the controlling burglary sentence for the time he spent in jail between arrest and sentencing on the later charges. View "Vermont v. LeClair" on Justia Law

The complainant in this case and defendant Tyler Waters lived together for several years and have a minor child together. After they broke up, complainant got a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order against defendant. A 2009 modification of the final RFA order was based on findings that defendant had abused complainant, there was a danger of further abuse, and defendant represented a credible threat to complainant’s safety. The order prohibited defendant from, among other things, abusing, threatening, stalking, or harassing complainant. It prohibited defendant from communicating or attempting to communicate directly or indirectly with complainant, except that it specifically stated, "[d]efendant may have contact by telephone only." Complainant reported to the police that due to the volume of communications from defendant she felt "harassed, bullied, and made to feel guilty." The State charged defendant with violating the RFA order. Specifically, the State alleged that defendant had violated the prohibition against harassing complainant. The ultimate issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether it was plain error for the trial court to instruct a jury that it could convict defendant for violating an abuse-prevention order prohibiting him from harassing petitioner if it concluded that he engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be "annoyed, irritated, tormented or alarmed." The Supreme Court concluded that the instruction was plain error, and that the evidence presented at trial could not support a conviction for violating the abuse-prevention order, as worded. View "Vermont v. Waters" on Justia Law