Carpentier v. Tuthill, 86 A.3d 1006

Plaintiff Doreen Carpentier sued the Estate of Paul Oakes for assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking compensatory and punitive damages and a writ of attachment.
Oakes died by suicide before arraignment; the trial bifurcated liability and punitive damages, with $30,000 awarded for compensatory damages and $150,000 for punitive damages.
During punitive damages, the jury heard evidence of Oakes’s prior rape and attempted rape convictions and probation violations, plus an affidavit about related criminal proceedings.
Probate court later ruled the attachment had no priority over administrative expenses; issues arose about selling the attached real property and priority of the claim.
Superior court denied motions to vacate/clarify the attachment; after judgment, defendant challenged the writ, and the matter was appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
The court addressed evidentiary rulings on prior convictions, the punitive-damages framework, and the attachment-writ waiver, sustaining the trial court rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior convictions for punitive damages	Prior bad acts show reprehensibility	Old convictions are irrelevant/misused under Rule 404(b)	Prior convictions admissible to show reprehensibility; not barred by 404(b)
Basis for punitive-damages award and remittitur standard	Award within due process given reprehensibility	Award excessive; remittitur warranted	No abuse of discretion; award within due-process bounds
Waiver of challenge to writ of attachment	Attachment challenge preserved for later review	Waived due to failure to challenge before judgment	Waived; writ challenges not timely raised before judgment
Effect of post-judgment probate rulings on attachment	Probate rulings impact priority/validity of attachment	Probate rulings control the attachment status	Rulings postdate judgment and cannot defeat pre-judgment attachment; no reversal

BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (reprehensibility as central to punitive-damages assessment)
TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993) (prior similar conduct relevant to punitive-damages consideration)
Sweet v. Roy, 173 Vt. 418 (2002) (prior bad acts admissible on punitive damages; supports admissibility)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (due-process considerations; factors for reprehensibility)
Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (1948) (habitual-offender concept informing punitive context)
Shahi v. Madden, 2008 VT 25 (2008) (single-digit punitive-damages ratios within due-process range)