In re Allen Rheaume
2016-220
| Vt. | Nov 4, 2016Background
- In 2004 petitioner pleaded guilty to violating 13 V.S.A. § 2601 (open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior) based on conduct in which he exposed himself and rubbed his penis while touching and grabbing a minor and her friend inside a private home.
- Petitioner later filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition arguing the conviction was defective because § 2601 requires the lewd conduct be "open" in the sense of occurring in public.
- The State moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, holding the statute does not require the conduct to occur in a public place.
- Petitioner appealed the grant of summary judgment, contending (1) "open" requires public behavior and (2) there were disputed material facts precluding summary judgment.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the summary-judgment decision de novo to determine whether any material factual disputes existed and whether the law was applied correctly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory element "open" requires the conduct occur in a public place | "Open" means public; conviction lacked proof because conduct occurred in a private home | "Open" means "undisguised, not concealed," and does not require a public place | Rejected plaintiff: "open" does not require public location; undisguised conduct in private can satisfy statute |
| Whether § 2601 includes an element that conduct be witnessed by at least one person | Plaintiff suggests statute requires public exposure (implying public witness) | State: statute requires only that conduct be "open" (undisguised), which can be shown by a single witness | Court: statute requires conduct be "open" (undisguised) and may be witnessed by one person; that element was met |
| Whether Beaudoin requires a public-place element | Plaintiff relies on Beaudoin to argue public element exists | State: Beaudoin states "open" means neither disguised nor concealed and may be witnessed by one person; it does not add a public-place requirement | Court: Beaudoin does not impose a public-location requirement; it supports the State's reading |
| Whether there were genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment | Plaintiff claims factual disputes about meaning of "open" and adequacy of State's response | State: these are legal issues, not material factual disputes | Court: no material factual disputes; questions were legal and summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Millard, 18 Vt. 574 (1846) (defines "open" as "undisguised, not concealed," and upholds conviction based on private-house exposure)
- State v. Benoit, 158 Vt. 359 (1992) (reaffirms Millard: "open" requires only that act be undisguised and may be proven by one witness)
- State v. Beaudoin, 158 Vt. 164 (2008) (clarifies § 2601 violation occurs when conduct is neither disguised nor concealed and is witnessed by at least one person)
- In re Barrows, 181 Vt. 283 (2007) (summarizes de novo appellate review standard for summary judgment)