State v. Sanville, 22 A.3d 450

Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a minor in 2000 and was placed on probation with a condition prohibiting violent or threatening behavior.
He had prior probation violations for missing therapy and for being in the presence of minors without authorization, resulting in jail time.
Between December 2008 and March 2009, he lived with his mother in a mobile home in Vermont; landlord sought eviction for past-due rent and repairs incomplete.
Defendant quarreled with the landlord, making verbal threats (e.g., burning the trailer, harming her and her husband) but did not engage in any physical aggression.
The probation officer filed a violation of probation alleging violation of condition M based on threats to burn down the trailer.
At the merits hearing, the court found a violation of condition M; defendant appealed on grounds of vagueness and lack of a conduct element, arguing only verbal statements were involved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does condition M adequately define threatening behavior?	State argued threats can violate condition M even without physical acts.	Defendant argued the term requires a conduct component and is impermissibly vague.	Condition M is unconstitutionally vague for threatening behavior.
Did defendant receive proper notice of what constitutes a probation violation?	State contends notice informed what acts may violate probation.	Defendant contends notice did not fairly inform what language prohibited.	Due process was violated due to lacking notice of prohibited verbal conduct.
Is Bessette controlling on whether verbal threats alone can violate condition M?	State relies on Bessette to support threats as sufficiently threatening.	Defendant distinguishes the present verbal threats from Bessette's threatening telephone call.	Bessette is distinguishable; not controlling; condition remains unconstitutionally vague here.

State v. Hammond, 172 Vt. 601 (2001) (due process requires notice of what may violate probation)
State v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205 (1990) (due process and clarity in probation conditions)
United States v. Simmons, 343 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2003) (conditions must be clear to a reasonable person)
State v. Buhar, 146 Vt. 398 (1985) (notice of what conduct is forbidden prior to revocation)
State v. Ashley, 161 Vt. 65 (1993) (threat defined in context; letters as threats can support charges)
State v. Cole, 150 Vt. 453 (1988) (threatening behavior includes the requisite intent)
State v. Woolbert, 2007 VT 26 (2007) (reviewing probation violation; clarity of condition matters)
State v. Duffy, 149 Vt. 473 (1989) (avoid overly broad probation conditions)