Barre, VT
Divorce and separation Lawyer at Barre, VT
Practice Areas: Divorce & Separation, Criminal Defense ... +6 more
OUTCOME: 617 A.2d 885
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit, Edward J. Cashman, J., of aggravated assault, and she appealed. The Supreme Court, Gibson, J., held that failur ... e to give jury lesser included offense instruction on simple assault was reversible error.
OUTCOME: 614 A.2d 377
Defendant and his private investigator appealed from order of the District Court, Rutland Circuit, Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J., which held investigator in civil contempt for refusing to answer depo ... sition questions about witnesses he had interviewed. State moved to dismiss appeal. The Supreme Court, Gibson, J., held that: (1) contempt order was “final order” and was appealable as of right, regardless of whether it was final as to defendant, and (2) state, in criminal prosecution, lacks power to subpoena witness statements from defense.
OUTCOME: 601 A.2d 1376
Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Chittenden Circuit, Edward J. Cashman, J., of burglary, and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Dooley, J., held that: (1) State cannot meet its burden ... of proof if sole evidence upon which conviction is based is past recollection recorded or prior inconsistent statement, unless prior statement meets specific standards of reliability, and (2) witness' inquest testimony, which was admitted as past recollection recorded and was sole evidence used to identify defendant as perpetrator, was insufficient to support conviction.
OUTCOME: 597 A.2d 770
Defendant charged with attempted sexual assault served subpoena duces tecum on Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), requiring caseworker to produce all SRS files pertaining to child ... victim. The State moved to quash subpoena, and the Addison Superior Court, Arthur J. O'Dea, J., granted that motion. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Allen, C.J., held that SRS files were not protected from discovery under patient's privilege.
OUTCOME: 598 A.2d 119
Defendant charged with felony possession of marijuana moved to suppress evidence seized in search of his girlfriend's residence, on ground that search warrant was issued without probable cause. The Dis ... trict Court, Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit, Robert Grussing III, J., denied defendant's motion to suppress, and defendant moved for and was granted permission to appeal. The Supreme Court, Allen, C.J., held that mere fact that officers acted in good faith in executing search warrant later found to have been issued without probable cause was not sufficient basis for admitting unlawfully seized articles into evidence.
OUTCOME: 584 A.2d 1126
Child was found to be in need of care and supervision by the District Court, Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit, Linda Levitt, J. Parents appealed. The Supreme Court, Dooley, J., held that child who refused t ... o return home after staying with relative for short period of time was not beyond control of parents and, therefore, could not be found to be in need of care and supervision.
OUTCOME: 562 A.2d 1040
Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit, Ronald F. Kilburn, J., of embezzlement, and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Dooley, J., held that: (1) if conversion by em ... ployee of money accepted from customer occurs before money is deposited in cash drawer, there is no trespass, and there is thus no larceny, so crime is embezzlement, but once money received by employee from customer is deposited in cash drawer of employer, employee no longer has possession of money, but retains only custody, with constructive possession being in owner, and conversion at that point involves trespass and is thus larceny; (2) bartender employed at private club could not be convicted of embezzlement based on his removal of money from cash drawer at time when only money in drawer was “bank” belonging to club, and defendant had only custody and not possession of money at time of taking; and (3) plain error occurred when defendant was convicted of embezzlement on facts that would not support finding defendant to be in possession of money that he took from employer, crux of defense was that he took only money owed him for wages on belief that he was legally entitled to do so, and court's rulings denied claim-of-right defense as it would have been available to defendant if he were properly charged with larceny.
OUTCOME: 534 A.2d 184
Defendant was convicted, by jury, of sexual assault, before the District Court, Windsor Circuit, George F. Ellison, J., and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Hill, J., held that: (1) expert testim ... ony regarding profile or syndrome evidence of child sexual abuse victim was admissible; (2) expert testimony could not be used to bolster complaining witness' credibility; (3) defendant was not entitled to cross-examine complaining witness concerning prior sexual assault upon her by another; and (4) complainant's testimony about alleged prior acts of sexual assault by defendant was admissible.
OUTCOME: 503 A.2d 542
Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault by District Court, Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit, Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J., and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Hill, J., held that defendant should h ... ave been allowed to impeach key witness against him by introducing evidence of the witness' recent conviction of attempting to receive stolen property.
OUTCOME: 415 A.2d 1318
From orders of the District Court, Windham County, John A. Lowery, J., adjudicating child to be a child in need of care or supervision and terminating father's parental rights, father appealed. The Sup ... reme Court, Larrow, J., held that trial court did not make sufficient findings at adjudication hearing where its sole finding was that child was a “child in need of care or supervision, and is without proper parental care, subsistence, education, medical or other care necessary for his well-being.”
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
