Brian L. Burgess

The case involved defendant Yai Bol, who was convicted of providing false information to a police officer and possession of cocaine after a jury trial. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his peremptory challenge to strike the only black juror from the panel without first establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed, holding that the trial court misapplied federal constitutional law by requiring a race-neutral reason without the prerequisite showing of discrimination, and that such an error in denying a peremptory challenge warranted reversal. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a divorced husband appealing a family court's order garnishing his Social Security disability benefits to cover alimony arrears, where the court had included his veterans' disability benefits in calculating his disposable earnings for the garnishment limit. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the veterans' benefits could not be included because they are not remuneration for employment under federal law. The court reasoned that 42 U.S.C. § 659 allows garnishment of such benefits only if based on employment remuneration, which these nonservice-connected payments are not, so they are excluded from the aggregate disposable earnings calculation under 15 U.S.C. § 1673. Therefore, only up to 55% of the Social Security benefits could be garnished.

family lawfederal power

The case involved U.S. Bank National Association's foreclosure action against homeowner Christine Kimball for defaulting on a mortgage loan originally issued by Accredited Home Lenders. U.S. Bank claimed it had been assigned the note and mortgage but attached only undated endorsements and an affidavit from a mortgage servicer employee to support its standing. The trial court granted summary judgment to the homeowner, ruling that U.S. Bank failed to show it held the note at the time the complaint was filed. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice, holding that the lack of dated assignments meant there was no evidence of timely ownership or right to enforce the note. The court remanded the matter for consideration of the homeowner's request for attorney's fees.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether Mountain View Community School, a licensed nonprofit independent elementary school in Rutland, Vermont, qualified for a property tax exemption under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4) for lands owned by "colleges, academies or other public schools." The school had paid taxes under protest but sought the exemption after assessments rose sharply; the City denied it, and the trial court ruled against the school by applying the "public use" test that requires direct benefit to an indefinite class of the public. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's exemptions are disjunctive and that the "public school" clause does not require the public-use criteria; instead, a nonprofit educational corporation licensed by the state that uses the property solely for schooling meets the exemption. The Court found the undisputed facts satisfied these requirements and remanded for entry of judgment for the school.

taxesproperty

The case involved defendant Graham Simmons appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a stolen laptop and other items found during a search of his residence pursuant to a warrant. Police obtained the warrant after using inquest subpoenas to MySpace and Verizon to link the defendant's IP address to unauthorized access of a neighbor's wireless network, following an anonymous tip about stolen property. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the defendant failed to properly preserve his claim of a warrantless search violating Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and that any error was not plain error, while the anonymous informant's reliability was irrelevant to establishing probable cause for the warrant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved neighbors appealing the grant of a zoning permit to Bradford Tyler for constructing a self-storage facility in the Village Commercial District of Dorset, Vermont. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Environmental Division's decision that the facility qualified as a permitted "retail sales/rentals" use. The court reasoned that the plain language of the zoning bylaws, interpreted with ejusdem generis, limits such uses to retail sales or rentals of merchandise or services to consumers, not the rental of storage space, particularly where many potential customers were businesses.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involves a dispute between neighboring landowners in which plaintiff David Smalley claimed that portions of a golf course built by defendant Stowe Mountain Club, LLC violated restrictive covenants in his 1959 deed from the Mount Mansfield Company. The covenants limited land within 200 feet of his property to the same residential restrictions, including a prohibition on use for any trade, business, or place of public resort, and Smalley argued that 2003 and 2004 transfers of the golf course land triggered these limits. The trial court granted summary judgment to Smalley and issued declaratory and injunctive relief. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the transfers were inter-corporate capital contributions among affiliated entities without monetary consideration and may not qualify as a sale or conveyance under the deed, that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the parties' intent and SMC's affirmative defenses of estoppel, laches, and unclean hands, and that further discovery was required before summary judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a traveling nurse charged with obtaining a regulated drug by deceit and possessing a narcotic after allegedly removing a syringe of Fentanyl from an anesthesia cart at Copley Hospital and testing positive for the drug. At trial, the State presented evidence from coworkers who observed the defendant near the cart and filling a syringe with water, along with laboratory results on a tampered syringe and the defendant's urine sample. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for acquittal at the close of the State's case, and the jury convicted on both counts. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that admission of the laboratory reports did not amount to plain error because they were prepared as business records in the ordinary course of medical and hospital administration rather than for use at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Rooney, defendant Brian Rooney was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder under 13 V.S.A. § 2311(a)(8) for killing University of Vermont student Michelle Gardner-Quinn while perpetrating a sexual assault, and received a life sentence. The conviction rested primarily on forensic DNA evidence matching Rooney to sperm recovered from the victim, along with circumstantial evidence of his interactions with her on the night she disappeared. Rooney appealed, arguing that the State's failure to disclose the Vermont Forensic Laboratory's internal validation studies violated his due process rights and that the trial court should have dismissed the aggravated murder charge or sentenced him under the first-degree murder statute because the two statutes have identical elements, violating equal protection. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the DNA evidence and related testimony were properly admitted without creating unfair surprise, that the statutes were not identical in scope or penalty, and that no clear legislative intent existed to repeal the first-degree murder statute or limit prosecutorial charging discretion. The court also noted that any state constitutional claim under the Common Benefits Clause was inadequately preserved.

criminal law

The case involved a tenant suing her former landlord for damages to her car after snow and ice slid off the roof onto her parking space. The trial court ruled in favor of the tenant, finding a violation of the implied warranty of habitability and awarding damages based on the car's diminished value. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the implied warranty of habitability applies only to conditions affecting the safety and fitness of the premises for human habitation and does not extend to protecting a tenant's personal property such as an automobile. The court also upheld the denial of the tenant's late motion to add a negligence claim.

property

In Zorn v. Smith, plaintiff Robert Zorn appealed a trial court order that prohibited him from filing additional documents in a long-standing legal malpractice case except through a licensed attorney, due to numerous incomprehensible and unsupported post-judgment motions filed years after a 2001 judgment. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the sanction order but clarified that it applies only to this specific case and modified it to allow Zorn to demonstrate any financial inability to hire an attorney. The court reasoned that Zorn's filings lacked legal or evidentiary support, violated Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and that requiring representation was an appropriate response to vexatious litigation while ensuring the sanction was narrowly tailored.

procedure

The case involved defendant M.A., who faced charges of sexual assault and lewd or lascivious conduct with a child but was found incompetent to stand trial. The district court ordered him placed in the custody of the Commissioner of Disability, Aging and Independent Living under 18 V.S.A. § 8839 after determining he presented a danger of harm to others and required custody, care, and habilitation that the Commissioner could provide. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the order, ruling that the district court had proper jurisdiction because the proceeding arose from the criminal docket rather than an independent Title 18 mental health petition, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the danger finding.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Herring, the defendant was convicted after a second trial of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault on a minor, and lewd conduct with a child based on alleged abuse of his daughter spanning nearly a decade. The trial court excluded a prior inconsistent statement by the complainant about the location of a specific incident that the defense sought to use for impeachment. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the exclusion violated the defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses because the evidence was not unduly prejudicial once the defendant waived any such objection and the complainant's credibility was central to the case. The court found the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a declaratory judgment action by Northern Security Insurance Company seeking a ruling that its homeowner's policy provided no coverage for lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by the Perrons' minor son Kyle while the children were at a daycare run from the Perron home. The trial court had found the policy void as to Rose Perron due to her material misrepresentation on the application but applied the innocent co-insured doctrine to preserve coverage for Steven and Kyle, ruled that Northern bore the burden of proving the injuries were intended or expected, and after a jury trial determined that Kyle had not intended or expected harm. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the misrepresentation did not void coverage for the other insureds, that intent is judged subjectively, and that the jury's finding supported coverage under the policy. The core reasoning relied on prior precedent applying the innocent co-insured doctrine, the policy language, and the evidence presented at trial.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a declaratory judgment action by Northern Security Insurance Company to determine coverage under a homeowner’s policy for claims against the Perrons stemming from allegations of sexual abuse by their minor son Kyle at a daycare operated by Rose Perron. The trial court held the policy void as to Rose due to her material misrepresentation in the application but applied the innocent co-insured doctrine to preserve coverage for Steven and Kyle, and a jury found that Kyle did not intend or expect to cause harm to the victims. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that precedent supported separate coverage for innocent co-insureds where the policy language so provided, that the insurer bore the burden to prove intent under a subjective standard, and that the jury’s verdict was supported by expert testimony and other evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Harry and Lucille Clayton suing attorney Stephen Unsworth and his law firms for legal malpractice, alleging that Unsworth improperly waived a statute-of-limitations defense during 2002 binding arbitration over ownership of shares in a family corporation amid a long-running dispute with their son. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the malpractice claim and dismissed the remaining claims. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Claytons failed to support their allegations with citations to the record or evidence showing that Unsworth's performance fell below professional standards or proximately caused damages, and that no genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a Vermont defendant charged with unlawfully cultivating more than twenty-five marijuana plants in violation of state law. She sought a jury instruction on the common-law necessity defense, asserting that she grew the plants to treat her son's medical symptoms under Vermont's therapeutic use of cannabis statute, even though neither she nor her son was registered as a patient or caregiver. The trial court denied the instruction, ruling that the defendant had not made a prima facie showing on all elements of necessity and that the statutory scheme precluded the defense. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the proffered facts failed to satisfy the requirement that no reasonable alternative to violating the law existed. The court therefore held that the defense could not be presented to the jury.

criminal lawhealthcare

In this case, the State of Vermont brought a civil enforcement action under the Vermont Waste Management Act (10 V.S.A. § 6615) and common-law public nuisance to recover past and future response costs for cleaning up extensive perchloroethylene contamination at a former dry-cleaning site in Barre, seeking to impose liability on past operators, a bank that briefly held title after foreclosure, and the current owner who operated a pizzeria there. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank on the nuisance claim and later dismissed the statutory claims against both the bank and the current owner after discovery disputes; the State appealed. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to show a release or threat of release during the bank's ownership period and that the current owner established a diligent-owner defense by demonstrating appropriate pre-purchase inquiry under the standards applicable in 1999. The court further addressed the scope of discovery and the proper legal standard for the innocent-landowner defense, drawing on CERCLA principles but applying Vermont law.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved neighbors appealing a conditional use permit issued by the Town of Barton Zoning Board of Adjustment to Verizon Wireless for installing wireless communication antennas on two sites, one adjacent to the neighbors' land. The Environmental Court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, as the neighbors had not participated in the ZBA hearing and did not file a required motion to claim party status under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2) along with their notice of appeal. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the statutory participation requirement and court rules for asserting party status must be met to confer standing, regardless of notice disputes or pro se status, and that the court lacked authority to consider other issues without proper party status. The core reasoning emphasized strict adherence to procedural prerequisites for municipal zoning appeals under 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a).

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether real property owned by Vermont Studio Center, Inc., a nonprofit operating an artists' residency program in Johnson, Vermont, qualified for a property tax exemption under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4) as being devoted to public uses. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Town, finding that VSC failed to show its property benefited an indefinite class of the public, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that VSC's juried selection process and limited access defined a specific group of artists rather than serving the public at large, distinguishing the case from precedents like Sigler Foundation where broader public access supported exemption. It emphasized strict construction of tax exemptions and noted that selection criteria and non-public use weighed against qualifying under the statute.

taxesproperty