State v. Campbell
2015 Vt. 50
Vt.2015Background
- Gordon Campbell pled guilty to aggravated assault and sexual assault after an alcohol-fueled street attack in 2006; earlier plea was vacated and he entered a new plea in 2007 with PSI and psycho-sexual evaluation ordered.
- The PSI proposed special sex-offender probation conditions; Campbell objected at sentencing to two: Condition 42 (periodic polygraph testing, paid by defendant) and Condition 44 (must reside/work where approved by probation officer).
- At sentencing the court modified Condition 42 to provide that inability to pay is not a violation and retained it; the court added "approval shall not be unreasonably withheld" to Condition 44 but otherwise left the PO approval requirement.
- Defense expressly reserved the right to appeal the challenged sex-offender conditions despite the plea agreement.
- Campbell appealed, arguing Condition 42 serves no legitimate rehabilitative or public-safety purpose and Condition 44 is overbroad, unduly restrictive, and delegates unfettered discretion to the probation officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of polygraph condition (Cond. 42) | Polygraphs are an appropriate, statutorily authorized investigative tool to monitor sex-offender compliance and rehabilitation. | Polygraph results are unreliable and inadmissible; therefore they serve no legitimate purpose for supervision and so condition should be stricken. | Affirmed: polygraph testing may be imposed for non-evidentiary investigatory/rehabilitative purposes and is statutorily authorized; inability to pay cannot be a revocation ground. |
| Delegation and scope of PO approval over employment (part of Cond. 44) | PO approval of work is reasonably related to rehabilitation/public safety in this alcohol-related sexual assault case. | The condition is overbroad, gives unfettered discretion to PO, and lacks findings tying the broad delegation to case-specific needs. | Reversed as to employment portion: condition as written is overbroad and unduly restrictive; remand to justify, revise, or strike employment approval and to make findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Freeman, 193 Vt. 454, 70 A.3d 1008 (Vt. 2013) (upheld polygraph probation condition as investigative tool; rejected plain-error claim)
- State v. Moses, 159 Vt. 294, 618 A.2d 478 (Vt. 1992) (probation conditions must be reasonably related and not delegate implementation improperly; struck broad residence delegation)
- Rathe Salvage, Inc. v. R. Brown & Sons, Inc., 191 Vt. 284, 46 A.3d 891 (Vt. 2012) (polygraph results have limited probative value and risk confusion in jury trials)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1998) (noted polygraph utility for non-evidentiary purposes such as investigations and screening)