State v. Bourn, 192 Vt. 270

Bourn was convicted in Vermont Superior Court of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under 13 V.S.A. § 1024(a)(5) after he pointed an unloaded muzzleloader toward two police officers.
The muzzleloader had no primer and could not fire; the weapon was held by the forestock with the muzzle pointing down, and briefly swept toward the officers during a confrontation.
A year earlier, in December 2009, the State and Bourn negotiated a plea to one count of aggravated assault and one count of resisting arrest, with other charges dismissed; the judge indicated 1024(a)(5) required intent to threaten.
At trial in December 2010, the court instructed the jury that aggravated assault (a deadly-weapon threat) was a general-intent crime and declined to give a diminished-capacity defense for counts 1 and 2.
The jury found Bourn guilty on the two aggravated-assault counts and not guilty on the other charges, and, on appeal, he challenged the trial court’s misclassification of the mens rea and the exclusion of diminished-capacity defenses.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 1024(a)(5) requires a specific intent to threaten; the jury instruction and trial plan did not comport with this, requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1024(a)(5) requires specific intent to threaten.	Bourn argues § 1024(a)(5) is a general-intent crime.	State contends the statute lacks an express intent element but is understood as general intent.	Specific intent required; statute is not general-intent.
Whether diminished-capacity evidence could be used to negate the requisite intent for the aggravated-assault counts.	Diminished capacity could negate intent for counts 1–2.	As a general-intent crime, diminished capacity should not apply to counts 1–2.	Diminished-capacity defense should have been available; denial was error.

State v. D’Amico, 136 Vt. 153 (1978) (aggravated assault is a specific-intent crime)
State v. Sargent, 156 Vt. 463 (1991) (intent required for kidnapping where 'should have known' standard inappropriate)
State v. Audette, 149 Vt. 218 (1988) (implied intent when statute silent on mens rea)
State v. Francis, 151 Vt. 296 (1989) (determines legislative intent when mens rea silent)
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (mere omission of intent language not eliminate element)
State v. Longley, 2007 VT 101 (2007) (deadly-weapon definition and intent standards)