State v. Geromy Wells, 331 A.3d 1137

Geromy Wells was arrested and placed in a police holding cell, where he urinated, spat, and rubbed his genitals on cell surfaces.
As a result, the police put the cell out of service and incurred $75 in extra cleaning fees.
Wells was charged with misdemeanor unlawful mischief under 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c) for "damage" to the cell property, as well as other charges, after trial, convicted only of unlawful mischief and attempted assault on a law enforcement officer with bodily fluids (the latter not appealed).
At trial, Wells moved for acquittal, arguing his actions made the cell dirty but did not constitute legal "damage."
The trial court denied the motion, using a broad definition of "damage" that includes substantial impairment of property use or function.
Wells appealed, challenging the statutory interpretation of "damage."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether making the cell unsanitary constituted legal "damage" under 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c)	Actions substantially impaired use; cell unusable until cleaning; incurred cost	"Damage" means physical harm or loss; temporary soiling/dirtying is not damage	Affirmed trial court; "damage" includes substantial impairment to use/function
Whether intent to damage was proved	Defendant acted with purpose to impair cell usability	No evidence Wells intended to take cell out of service/cause expense	State produced sufficient evidence for jury to find required intent
Appropriate definition of statutory "damage"	Should be interpreted broadly (any injury/impairment)	Must be narrow, physical harm or actual loss only	Statute intended broad scope—any intentional substantial impairment covers case
Whether evidence was sufficient for jury	Evidence showed cell was out of service, cleaning required	No lasting impact, only minor/temporary inconvenience	Sufficient evidence for jury to convict

State v. Ellis, 186 Vt. 232 (Vt. 2009) (sets standard for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29)
State v. A.P., 216 Vt. 76 (Vt. 2021) (guides statutory interpretation in Vermont)
State v. Charette, 207 Vt. 372 (Vt. 2018) (statutory ambiguity reviewed in context of entire statute)
Khamnei v. Burlington Pub. Works Comm’n, 206 Vt. 550 (Vt. 2018) (plain meaning of undefined terms via dictionary)
State v. Gauthier, 213 Vt. 82 (Vt. 2020) (undefined statutory terms get ordinary meaning)
State v. Berard, 211 Vt. 39 (Vt. 2019) (no deference to trial court on statutory interpretation)