State v. J.S., 189 A.3d 552

Background

In 2012 defendant (17) was charged with sexual assault; he entered a conditional guilty plea in 2013 contingent on acceptance into the youthful‑offender treatment program; family division accepted him in Feb. 2014 and imposed two years' juvenile probation.
Between June–Nov. 2014 the probation officer filed multiple violation complaints; three hearings were held (Oct. 2014–Jan. 2015).
The court found three probation violations: (1) unexcused school absences; (2) failure to maintain GPS monitoring (allowing the unit to shut down); (3) refusal/nonparticipation in a court‑ordered Restorative Justice Panel intake.
Based on those violations the trial court revoked youthful‑offender status and returned the case to criminal court; defendant was sentenced to 3 years to life, with 2 years to serve (suspended) and probation.
On appeal the court affirmed the three violation findings but held the revocation of youthful‑offender status abused the court's discretion because the family division gave insufficient weight to the inadequacy of sex‑offender therapy provided to defendant; case remanded to family division for reconsideration of amenability to treatment.

Issues and Key Positions

Issue	State's/Prosecution's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved defendant willfully failed to attend school as required	School records and testimony show multiple unexcused absences; burden met by preponderance	Absences not tied to specific dates; housing/transportation problems made absences non‑willful	Affirmed: credible evidence of unexcused absences; court reasonably found absences were willful because defendant failed to secure excusals
Whether defendant willfully allowed GPS monitor to shut down	Evidence (including defendant's own testimony) showed repeated uncharged batteries and shutdowns; violation proven	Contested hearsay; shutdowns could be accidental	Affirmed: defendant introduced evidence and testified; no preserved hearsay objection and no plain error; court reasonably found conduct willful
Whether defendant violated requirement to participate in Restorative Justice Panel	Intake staff and probation officer testified defendant refused to accept responsibility and declined participation despite being warned a refusal could be a violation	Defendant had only just completed intake, was given time to consider, asked to consult counsel and requested different panel location; ample time remained in probation so violation was premature	Affirmed (majority): refusal to participate after intake constituted willful noncompliance; violation not premature; (concurring/dissent would reverse this violation)
Whether revocation of youthful‑offender status was proper	Court may revoke under 33 V.S.A. § 5285(c); applied the same statutory factors used to grant youthful‑offender status (public safety, amenability to treatment, available services) and found defendant not amenable	Court used improper standard or misweighed factors; defendant points to inadequate sex‑offender therapy assigned during probation and argues the court penalized him for state agency failings	Reversed in part: abuse of discretion. Court should have given greater weight to the admitted inadequacy of sex‑offender therapy when assessing amenability to treatment; remand to family division for reassessment.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389 (probation violation burden; willfulness standard)
State v. Provost, 199 Vt. 568 (probation findings are mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Blaise, 191 Vt. 564 (premature violation findings reversed where conditions/timeframe unclear)
Benson v. Muscari, 172 Vt. 1 (willfulness definition for probation violations)
State v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205 (refusal to engage in required therapy can support violation)
State v. Dixon, 185 Vt. 92 (abuse of discretion standard for probation/youthful‑offender determinations)