336 A.3d 430
Vt.2025Background
- Jessica Morrill was convicted in 2019 of assault and robbery after pleading nolo contendere in Vermont.
- In 2023, Morrill filed a motion in the criminal division seeking to vacate her conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 2658, arguing she was a victim of human trafficking.
- The State opposed, contesting both Morrill's status as a trafficking victim and the criminal division's jurisdiction over § 2658 motions, contending jurisdiction should be in the civil division.
- The criminal division granted Morrill’s motion, finding statutory requirements satisfied.
- The State sought extraordinary relief from the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing the criminal division lacked jurisdiction for such motions.
- The primary question was whether the motion to vacate under § 2658 must be heard in criminal or civil court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction for § 2658 motions | Civil division has proper jurisdiction | Criminal division has jurisdiction | Criminal division has jurisdiction |
| Statutory interpretation of "the court" | "The court" means civil division | "The court" means criminal division | "The court" in § 2658 refers to criminal division |
| Application of PCR analogy | § 2658 like PCR, thus civil division | § 2658 distinct from PCR; not dispositive | § 2658 is distinct from PCR; not controlling |
| Impact of burden of proof standard | Preponderance suggests civil division | Criminal division uses same standard for defenses | Standard not dispositive of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saari, 152 Vt. 510 (defining limitations of extraordinary relief/mandamus in Vermont)
- Lambell Lumber Corp. v. Newstress Int’l, Inc., 182 Vt. 282 (presumption of civil division jurisdiction unless otherwise stated)
- State v. Tierney, 138 Vt. 163 (importance of giving effect to every part of a statute)
- State v. Wilkins, 144 Vt. 22 (defendant's burden in criminal affirmative defenses by preponderance)