State v. Freeman, 70 A.3d 1008

Freeman pleaded guilty to multiple offenses including aggravated domestic assault and aggravated sexual assault, under a plea agreement for an aggregate sentence of twenty years to life, suspended to twenty years with probation.
Before sentencing, Freeman moved to withdraw his pleas over potential minimum release date, but withdrew after parties agreed to the twenty-to-life framework.
A PSI report with special probation conditions was filed; Freeman objected to the conditions later, but did not raise the probation issues prior to sentencing.
At sentencing, the court stated the appended special probation conditions were effectively recommendations that the parties implicitly agreed to; no explicit agreement appeared in the plea itself.
Two probation conditions challenged on appeal were: (38) submission to polygraph examinations; (40) residence/work restrictions under probation officer approval.
Freeman appeals alleging plain-error due to the imposition of conditions 38 and 40, arguing 38 misstates future admissibility and 40 is broad, overbroad, and unduly restrictive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver and plain error apply to probation conditions?	Freeman argues silence cannot preclude plain-error review.	State contends waiver by silence precludes plain-error review.	Plain-error review not precluded; implied waiver rejected
Is probation condition 38 valid as to polygraph use?	Condition 38 improperly creates admission of polygraph results at future revocation.	Condition uses polygraphs as investigative tools, not admitting evidence at revocation.	Condition 38 not plain error; permissible as investigative tool
Is probation condition 40 overbroad or unduly restrictive?	Condition 40 grants open-ended control over residence/work without findings of necessity.	Condition closely tied to supervision and rehabilitation needs.	Condition 40 struck; remand to provide justification or tailor restrictions with findings

State v. Moses, 159 Vt. 294 (1992) (probation conditions must be tailored; overbreadth concerns)
State v. Whitchurch, 155 Vt. 134 (1990) (protects fundamental rights; cautions against broad restrictions)
State v. Spooner, 2010 VT 75 (2010) (plain-error review in probation context where appropriate)
State v. Nguyen, 173 Vt. 598 (2002) (silence may constitute waiver in some contexts; plain-error analysis possible)
State v. Amidon, 2010 VT 46A (2010) (probation challenges barred on collateral review unless direct appeal available)
In re Cardinal, 162 Vt. 418 (1994) (waiver from silence can occur in certain contexts; sandbagging concerns)
State v. Koveos, 169 Vt. 62 (1999) (discusses limits of waiver and plain-error review)