This Week at SCOV: March 18, 2022

I don't know what's
up with this dog . . .
but it makes me laugh

By Andy Delaney

Two decisions on March 18 from SCOV.

First up is a constitutional challenge to school-funding tax collection and allocation. A student, a taxpayer, and the Town of Whitingham walk into a bar . . . I mean, filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State arguing that the State’s education funding and property tax scheme violates the Education Clause, the Proportional Contribution Clause, and the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs argued that the setup deprived the student of equal educational opportunity, required the taxpayer to contribute disproportionately to education funding, and compelled the Town to collect an unconstitutional tax. On summary judgment, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact and granted summary judgement to the State. On appeal, SCOV affirms, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. I say that a little tongue-in-cheek but SCOV does appear to apply a more-stringent-than-usual standard to summary judgment in this case, concluding that plaintiffs not “failed to make a showing of a genuine issue of material fact” but that plaintiffs “failed to present evidence sufficient for a jury to find” in their favor. SCOV affirms. Worth mentioning: footnote 1 emphasizes that when opposing a statement of undisputed facts, a statement that does not directly address the moving party’s statement renders the moving party’s statement the factual record. Practitioners beware. Boyd v. State, 2022 VT 12.

Our second case is about whether the State has a right to a psychiatrist’s eval of a defendant before a competency hearing in a criminal case. In this interlocutory appeal, SCOV holds that the trial court erred when it denied the State’s request for a psychiatric evaluation in response to defendant’s submission of a neuropsychological report and suggestion of incompetency due to “neurocognitive impairment and neurodevelopmental abnormalities.” There’s a statute that arguably requires a psychiatrist’s report before a competency hearing when due to a mental disease or defect, and to the trial court’s credit, it’s reasonable to conclude there’s a difference between a “mental disease or defect” and the neurocognitive problems defendant raised. SCOV, however, concludes that the statute requires a psychiatrist’s report and kicks it back to the trial court for further proceedings. State v. Boyajian, 2022 VT 13.       

x