State v. Kent Richland, Jr., 132 A.3d 702

On May 10–11, 2013, Richland arranged for a friend to buy gin after a 16‑year‑old texted him requesting alcohol; the minor later died in an intoxication‑related ATV crash.
Richland was charged under 7 V.S.A. § 658(a)(2): “No person shall . . . knowingly enable the consumption of . . . liquors by a person under the age of 21.”
At trial the court instructed the jury that the State must prove Richland knowingly enabled consumption but need not prove he knew the person was under 21; Richland objected.
The jury convicted; Richland appealed arguing the statute requires knowledge of the victim’s age and that the jury instruction was erroneous; he also challenged sentencing/probation conditions (not reached on appeal).
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed statutory construction de novo, applied the Model Penal Code/Flores‑Figueroa grammatical rule distributing scienter to successive elements, and considered legislative history and harmless‑error doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 658(a)(2) requires knowledge of the victim’s age	State: “Knowingly” modifies only the verb (enable); age need not be known	Richland: “Knowingly” applies to all material elements, including age	The Court held the State must prove the defendant knew the person was under 21; the jury instruction was erroneous
Whether evidence proved enabling consumption	State: circumstantial testimony ("this kid," friend’s comment) proves knowledge	Richland: evidence insufficient to show he knew the victim was a minor	Not decided on merits because conviction reversed for instructional error
Whether the instructional error was harmless	State: evidence of knowledge made error harmless beyond reasonable doubt	Richland: failure to instruct relieved State of burden; harm not harmless	Error was not harmless; reversal and remand for new trial ordered
Whether to review probation conditions given reversal	State: sentencing/probation valid	Richland: probation conditions improper / appeal punishment	Court did not reach these issues because conviction reversed

Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (adverbial scienter ordinarily applies to each element that follows)
United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938 (4th Cir. 2014) (legislative purpose can rebut Flores‑Figueroa presumption for age‑related elements)
State v. Kerr, 470 A.2d 670 (Vt. 1983) (sale/furnishing alcohol to minors treated as strict liability historically)
State v. Stanislaw, 573 A.2d 286 (Vt. 1990) (presumption in favor of mens rea; criminal statutes generally require intent)
State v. Jackowski, 915 A.2d 767 (Vt. 2006) (harmless‑error standard for erroneous jury instructions applies when an element is removed)