Douglas Cavett v. Andrew Pallito, 2015-383

Plaintiff, a DOC inmate, was found guilty at an internal disciplinary hearing of a Major A infraction for assaulting a corrections officer after he threw a crumpled paper ball that allegedly struck Officer Seavey.
The hearing officer relied on a video of the incident and testimony (audio recording of that hearing was later lost).
Plaintiff sought V.R.C.P. 75 review in superior court; the superior court held a merits hearing, reviewed the same video, and heard testimony from Officers Dunn, Seavey, Hebert, the DOC hearing officer, and plaintiff.
The superior court found plaintiff’s account not credible, concluded the paper hit Officer Seavey, and upheld the disciplinary conviction under DOC’s definition of assault on a corrections employee.
On appeal, plaintiff argued insufficiency of evidence (the paper did not make contact), alleged witness inconsistency and conspiracy, and challenged denial of a continuance and allowance of Seavey’s telephonic testimony.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether “some evidence” supported the disciplinary determination and affirmed the superior court, deferring to the administrative finding of fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for assault finding	Paper did not contact Officer Seavey; video shows no contact	Video plus Officer Dunn’s testimony suffice; hearing officer’s finding entitled to deference	Affirmed — "some evidence" supports the finding
Credibility / alleged conspiracy and fabricated testimony	Witnesses were inconsistent and conspired against him	Trial court credibly found no evidence of conspiracy; credibility is for factfinder	Affirmed — no clear error in credibility findings
Denial of continuance	Needed more time; prior stipulation required Seavey in person	Court reasonably denied continuance given delay and case history	Denial not an abuse of discretion
Admission of Seavey’s telephonic testimony at superior court	Seavey’s in-person appearance was stipulated; telephonic testimony improper	Superior court limited to reviewing record; Seavey did not testify at original hearing so her new testimony need not be considered	Court didn’t need to decide error; review limited to original hearing record and existing evidence sufficed

Herring v. Gorczyk, 173 Vt. 240 (2001) (administrative disciplinary findings upheld if supported by some evidence)
Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield, 191 Vt. 76 (2011) (trial court may admit evidence to establish facts necessary for review when administrative transcript unavailable)
In re M.K., 198 Vt. 233 (2015) (appellate court may view video evidence admitted at trial while reviewing factual findings for clear error)
LaFaso v. Patrissi, 161 Vt. 46 (1993) ("some evidence" standard does not require reweighing credibility)
State v. Woolbert, 181 Vt. 619 (2007) (appellate role is to ensure findings are supported by evidence, not to redecide witness credibility)