215 A.3d 1094
Vt.2019Background
- After an investigatory stop at 1:00 a.m., police deployed a drug‑sniffing dog that alerted; search of a vehicle produced suspected heroin, cash, and a loaded gun; three defendants were charged (one also with carrying a weapon while committing a felony).
- Defendants moved to suppress, arguing the stop and its extension (questioning and canine sniff) lacked reasonable suspicion; trial court denied suppression and denied reconsideration.
- Defendants moved for interlocutory review under V.R.A.P. 5; the trial court granted permission but did not state the grounds for allowing the appeal.
- This Court initially dismissed the interlocutory appeals as improvidently granted, relying on State v. Lyford — which required a defendant to show a conditional guilty plea was not available or practicable before seeking interlocutory review.
- On reconsideration, the Court overruled Lyford’s prerequisite (that defendants must demonstrate conditional plea impracticability) but dismissed the appeals without prejudice because the trial court failed to state grounds showing Rule 5’s requirements were met.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant must show a conditional guilty plea is unavailable/practicable before seeking interlocutory review | Implied support for preserving Lyford’s rule (interlocutory review should be limited) | Lyford coerces pleas, alters Rule 5, infringes rights; no prerequisite should be read into Rule 5 | Overruled Lyford: defendants need not show conditional plea impracticability; interlocutory review governed by V.R.A.P. 5 alone |
| Whether this Court must hear interlocutory appeals simply because the trial court granted permission under 12 V.S.A. § 2386 | Trial court’s grant should carry weight; statute suggests Supreme Court shall hear granted appeals | Trial court’s grant does not bind this Court; Court retains authority to dismiss | Held Court may dismiss appeals as improvidently granted; V.R.A.P. 5 and Court’s inherent power permit dismissal |
| Whether the denial of suppression here qualifies for interlocutory review under V.R.A.P. 5(b) | If suppression were dispositive, immediate review could materially advance termination | Denial of suppression does not necessarily dispose of the case; conditional plea alternative exists (but not required) | Dismissed appeals without prejudice because trial court failed to state which Rule 5 factors it found satisfied |
| Whether the trial court’s unexplained grant of interlocutory review suffices | Trial court exercised discretion in granting permission | Defendants argued permission was granted; asked Court to accept appeal | Trial court must state grounds for permitting interlocutory appeal; absent such findings, Supreme Court will dismiss so trial court may reissue a reasoned ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blondin, 128 Vt. 613 (1970) (pretrial suppression rulings generally unsuited for interlocutory review)
- State v. Elwell, 131 Vt. 245 (1973) (interlocutory review discretionary; issues depending on factual record typically not ripe)
- State v. Karcz, 134 Vt. 187 (1976) (denial of suppression usually not appropriate for interlocutory review under Rule 5)
- State v. Pelican, 154 Vt. 496 (1990) (Supreme Court may dismiss interlocutory appeals as improvidently granted)
- State v. McCann, 149 Vt. 147 (1987) (Supreme Court may grant or deny interlocutory review; standard is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Wetherbee, 177 Vt. 274 (2004) (denials of motions to suppress are unreviewable as of right until after conviction)
- State v. Thayer, 188 Vt. 482 (2010) (example where Court accepted interlocutory review in a criminal case)