Didn't he say he was going to keep up with posts this year? Been at least a month. So much for that idea!
There actually hasn't been anything issued since January 19, 2024. I swear I am not making this up. Yesterday, however, SCOV issued four opinions and I've painstakingly dissected, um, I mean, I've written some probably mostly accurate words about those four decisions below.*
First, we have a challenge to Vermont’s recently enacted vote-by-mail statute. The trial court concluded that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claim because he did not—and could not—show that he’d been injured in fact. On appeal, SCOV is noncommittal about whether plaintiff has standing but assuming that he does, SCOV reasons that he still needs to plead a problem with a particular election. And since that didn’t happen here, no case. SCOV affirms the dismissal on alternate grounds. Paige v. State, 2024 VT 7.
Second, we have an interesting statute-of-limitations question. It’s not one I’ve run across before. If a child is born during a marriage, there’s a statutory presumption that the kid is of the marriage. If a challenge is to be made to that presumption, it needs to be made within two years. The Office of Child Support (OCS) made a challenge after that time limit expired but argued it was in the best interests of the child to proceed. This is not the best procedural argument. Long story short: neither the family division magistrate, the family division judge, nor SCOV take the bait. The case gets dismissed and double affirmed. Booker v. Thomas, 2024 VT 9.
Third, we venture into the criminal realm. Defendant—being 20 years old—planned to meet up with a 15-year-old girl in the middle of the night at her grandparents’ trailer. He brought a gun for some reason and tried to hand it to her when he climbed in through the window at 2:30 a.m. They had sex until they heard voices outside her window. Defendant hid and eventually left after first refusing to leave. Ultimately, defendant was convicted of sexual assault and carrying a weapon while committing a felony. He was given a sentence of five-to-life. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and probation conditions. SCOV affirms both convictions without much fanfare. On the probation conditions, however, SCOV reverses three: (1) a condition prohibiting contact with anyone under the age of 18 when the presentence investigation mentioned females not males; (2) a condition authorizing defendant’s probation officer to order “any programming” in the mental health context; and (3) a similar condition in the sex-offender-treatment context. SCOV reasons that these conditions are too broad and—since the state agrees—sends these three conditions back to the trial court for reworking. State v. Lafayette, 2024 VT 6.
Fourth and finally, we have another criminal case. At first glance it seems simple. Defendant was first arrested and charged more than nineteen years ago. He was then found incompetent more than fifteen years ago. The trial court found that the state had an obligation—and failed—to reevaluate defendant’s competency to stand trial and therefore dismissed on speedy-trial grounds. But a three-justice majority reasons that because the only reason for the delay is defendant’s incompetency, the case should be reinstituted and remands to the trial court. Justice Waples, joined by specially assigned Judge Morrissey, dissents. The dissent does not agree that the sole reason for delay is defendant’s incompetency and reasons that the state had an obligation to bring the case to trial and to reevaluate defendant’s competency at some point in the last, you know, twenty years. State v. Armstrong, 2024 VT 5.
*No guarantees whatsoever. Period.
Comments
Post a Comment