147 A.3d 1005
Vt.2016Background
- Defendant had a 2005 conviction for home improvement fraud under 13 V.S.A. § 2029(b)(1) and completed his sentence; he knew he would be placed on the home‑improvement‑fraud registry.
- In 2014 police investigated and the State charged the defendant with three counts for performing paid home improvement work in 2012–2013 without notifying the Attorney General and without filing a $50,000 surety or letter of credit, as required by § 2029(f)(2).
- Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the information failed to allege he knew of the notice/surety obligations (i.e., the statute requires scienter). The trial court denied the motion, treating § 2029(f) as a strict‑liability offense.
- Defendant entered conditional pleas reserving the right to appeal whether § 2029(f) contains a mens rea element; appeal followed.
- The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed de novo, examined statutory text, lack of common‑law origin, and applied the multi‑factor Roy test; it affirmed, holding § 2029(f) is strict liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2029(f)(2) requires proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the notice/surety duties | State: statute imposes no fault element; strict liability is appropriate to protect the public | Defendant: statute implies a scienter element; prosecution must prove knowledge of the legal duty | Court: § 2029(f) is a strict‑liability offense (no mens rea required) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roy, 151 Vt. 17, 557 A.2d 884 (1989) (sets multi‑factor test to decide when mens rea should be implied)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (absence of express intent language does not automatically eliminate mens rea)
- State v. Pontbriand, 178 Vt. 120, 878 A.2d 227 (2005) (statutory interpretation that presence of mens rea is question of law reviewed de novo)
- State v. Audette, 149 Vt. 218, 543 A.2d 1315 (1988) (example of imputing mens rea where appropriate)
- State v. Searles, 159 Vt. 525, 621 A.2d 1281 (1993) (applies Roy factors to uphold strict liability for serious offenses)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (distinguishes when knowledge of law is required; "willful" differs from "knowingly")