The following is the floor report delivered by Representative Karen Dolan on H.410, which I sponsored and passed out of my committee on a unanimous vote.

H.410, as amended by your House Judiciary Committee, creates a standardized definition of recidivism in Vermont statute and directs the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) to produce annual reports on key criminal justice system indicators. H.410 improves consistency in how Vermont measures recidivism and provides Vermont with clear, comprehensive data on trends in our criminal justice system.

Recidivism is the measure of when an individual convicted of a crime commits a new offense. Currently, the definition of recidivism in Vermont is outdated and arbitrary, focusing on a narrow section of individuals. Due to the limited scope of the current measure, data related to recidivism is not effectively used in Vermont criminal data analysis. H. 410, brought stakeholders together to revamp the definition of recidivism in order to make it relevant and usable in future studies and legislation related to criminal justice in Vermont.

H.410 also creates a new chapter in Title 13 entitled, Criminology Measures. This chapter establishes a number of annual reports which will be generated by the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center related to measures such as bail rates, recidivism rates, and arrest and conviction data. Some may remember the passage of S.14 in 2023 (now Act 40) which launched an initial criminal justice data report. With the success of that report, H.410 provides a long-term plan for maintaining related reports- this is critical for future legislatures to make data-driven decisions related to our criminal justice system.

Now I will provide a brief review of the sections of the bill. You can follow along starting on page 1241 of today’s calendar.

Sec. 1. Creates a new chapter in Title 13 establishing a statewide definition of recidivism and directing the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) to produce annual reports on several criminal justice indicators.

Subsection 8121 Defines recidivism as a new criminal conviction following a prior conviction. The date of arraignment for the new offense is used as a proxy for when the offense occurred. The recidivism calculation period begins when an individual is released from incarceration or sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.

Subsection 8122 Requires Vermont’s SAC to submit annual reports by April 1st of each year to relevant legislative committees. The reports must include:

• Bail rates and information on individuals held pretrial in Vermont correctional facilities.
  
• Recidivism rates calculated over three- and five-year periods.
  
• Arrests and clearance rates organized by offense type using National Incident-Based Reporting System categories.
  
• Information on the 20 crimes with the highest number of convictions, including sentencing data and total years of probation and incarceration imposed.
  
• This section also requires inclusion of demographic information, when available, and directs state and local agencies to provide data necessary for SAC to complete the reports.

Sec. 2. Repeals the current statutory definition of recidivism used by the Department of Corrections, as the definition is now established in Title 13. This change was reviewed and supported by the House Corrections and Institutions Committee.

Sec. 3. Removes references to the prior recidivism definition and related reporting requirements that are replaced by the new definition and reporting structure in Title 13.

Sec. 4. Appropriates a total of $25,000 from the General Fund in fiscal year 2027 to support the preparation of the annual reports required in the bill. 

Sec. 5. States that H.410 shall take effect on July 1, 2026.

The Committee heard testimony from the following: 

• Office of Legislative Counsel
• Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Attorney General’s Office
• General Counsel, Governor’s Office
• Director of Research, Crime Research Group (VT’s current SAC)
• Director of Research and Data Analytics, Department of Corrections
• Executive Director of Policy and Strategic Initiatives, Department of Corrections
• Legislative Attorney, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs
• Defender General, Defender General’s Office
• Deputy Defender General and Chief Juvenile Defender
• Executive Director, Crime Research Group
• Deputy Division Director, State Impacts, Council of State Governments Justice Center
• Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary
• House Corrections and Institutions also reviewed the bill

In summary, H.410, as amended by House Judiciary, establishes consistent statewide measures for recidivism and other criminal justice indicators so that Vermont has clearer, more reliable information to inform policy decisions as we continue our goals to address public safety and criminal justice reform. With the long-term vision of H.410, Vermont will have a solid foundation to build on these efforts. 

H.410 as amended, passed out on a vote of 10-0-1 and your Committee on Judiciary asks for your support.

The following is the floor report delivered by Representative Ian Goodnow on H.642, which I sponsored and was voted out of my committee on a unanimous vote.

Before the chamber is House Judiciary Committee’s strike-all amendment to H.642, entitled “An act relating to youthful offender proceedings.” Madame Speaker, this bill proposes to make changes to two existing statutes related to the youthful offender laws in Vermont to both improve how revocation of the youthful offender status occurs and allow for more victim input in the process. 

By way of background, the Youthful Offender system allows the transfer of jurisdiction from the Criminal Division to the Family Division for cases involving youth aged 14 to 21 for certain alleged criminal offenses. This transfer of jurisdiction provides for a confidential process in the family court which is premised on the science related to adolescent brain development and data. The data tells us that when a youth’s case is prosecuted in the Criminal Division rather than in the family division, the outcomes as measured by recidivism are not good. H.642 deals primarily with the procedures related to what happens when an individual on youthful offender status  violates juvenile probation.  Specifically, what happens when there is a motion to revoke youthful offender status and send the youth to criminal court due to a probation violation. 

Moving on to the bill itself, Madame Speaker, Section 1 can be found on page ___ in today’s calendar. Section 1 proposes changes to 33 V.S.A. § 5285, and is related to  modifications or revocations of a youth’s juvenile probation. 

The first change to this section is to add a new subsection a(2) to 33 V.S.A. § 5285, which extends the jurisdiction of the family division beyond the youth’s 22nd birthday if there is a pending motion to revoke the youthful offender status. This extended jurisdiction would last either until the youth’s probation is revoked, or the youth is discharged from probation. This new provision addresses a serious issue that currently exists where youths have “timed out” of their juvenile probation because the youth turns 22 while there is a pending motion for revocation or modification. This change will allow for the youth to remain within the Family Court’s jurisdiction to either complete probation, or have their Youthful Offender status revoked and be transferred to criminal court or to the Department of Corrections’ custody..

Madame Speaker the second change in section one can be found on page ___ of todays calendar. Here we are still operating in 33 V.S.A. § 5285 related to motions for revocation of a youthful offender status. These proposed changes relate to how the court determines what to do once it’s ruled that there has been a violation of probation. The Court has multiple options as to what can happen once its made that ruling: it can continue the youth on probation with any modifications it feels are necessary, it can revoke the youth’s probation and transfer them to criminal court for sentencing, or it can revoke the probation and transfer the youth into the custody of DOC. 

H.642 proposes to provide a number of factors for the court to consider when deciding which of those outcomes to order. These can be found in the new proposed (c)(2) in 33 V.S.A. § 5285. The three factors proposed are 1) if public safety will be protected if the youth continues on probation 2) if the youth continues to be amenable to treatment as a youthful offender and 3) if there continues to be sufficient services to meet the youth’s treatment and rehabilitation needs. 

Further, H.642 clarifies that if a youth fails to appear at the probation revocation hearing, if good cause is not shown for why the youth failed to appear, the court may order an officer to pick up the youth and bring them to court. 

Moving on to Section 2 Madame speaker, H.642 proposes to make multiple changes to sections of 33 V.S.A. § 5288 relating to rights of victims in youthful offender proceedings. These changes can be found on page ___ of today’s calendar.  The primary change can be found in 33 V.S.A. § 5288 (a)(2), H.642 proposes to add language to allow victims to be present at the preliminary hearing to determine whether a youth should be considered for youthful offender status and, critically, to allow the victim to testify as to whether they believe youthful offender status to be appropriate for the youth. The further changes in 5288 align the language for court procedure to make clear the victim’s rights as it relates to youthful offender status. These changes are important, Madame Speaker, as a victim’s experience and ultimately the outcome of their case will be dramatically different depending on whether the youth is transferred to the youthful offender system or remains in the criminal court, and thus the victim’s voice should be heard and considered when the court makes that determination. 

The Youthful Offender System is an important tool in Vermont’s criminal justice system for young vermonters. H.642 will help to strengthen that system. 

The bill was reported favorably out of House Judiciary on a vote of 10-0-1 and the committee respectfully asks the House to join us in supporting its passage.

The following is the Floor Report delivered by Representative Angela Arsenault on H.606, which was passed out of my Committee on a split vote.

Madam Speaker, H.606 is a carefully-crafted public safety bill that proposes to address three specific firearms-related issues, mainly by relying on existing federal laws that have been upheld by numerous courts, including the United States Supreme Court. 

This bill carefully balances second amendment rights with the need to keep Vermonters safe. It helps improve Vermonters’ safety by keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who have been found by a court to be a danger of harm to themselves or others. It also mimics the existing federal prohibition on machine guns, which are not tools for hunting or self-defense. 

In short, this bill upholds the long-standing tradition of narrow, targeted, Constitutionally-sound restrictions on gun ownership in this country.

The text of the bill can be found on page TKTK of today’s House Calendar. Let us now walk through the bill. 

Section 1 amends Vermont’s existing grand larceny statute by adding theft of a firearm. This means that the theft of a firearm, regardless of the value of the firearm, would be a felony offense punishable by not more than 10 years in prison, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. Typically, theft of objects or goods valued at less than $900 would be a misdemeanor charge. This change reflects the seriousness of the offense. 

The definition of “firearm” in this provision refers to 13 VSA § 4017, which expressly excludes antique firearms. This definition replaced a more expansive definition of “firearm” that was used in an earlier version of the bill – a change that was made at the request of gun-rights group the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. 

Section 2 proposes several amendments to the existing Vermont statute that prohibits possession of firearms by persons convicted of certain violent crimes. Similar prohibitions exist in all 49 other states and under federal law. Vermont’s law was passed in 2015 and provides that possession of a firearm after being convicted of a violent crime is a misdemeanor subject to a maximum penalty of two years in prison. Section 2 proposes to increase the penalty to a 3-year felony if a person commits the crime for a second or subsequent time.

In addition to persons convicted of violent crimes, there are several other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms under both Vermont and federal law. Current Vermont law prohibits possession by fugitives from justice and persons subject to relief from abuse orders or orders against stalking. These persons are also prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. At the request of the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs, Section 3 proposes to add to Vermont law another category of persons who are already excluded from firearms possession by federal law: persons who have been involuntarily committed by a court order because they were dangerous to themselves or others. Persons seeking voluntary mental health treatment will not be subject to this prohibition.

Federal law prohibits all persons who have been involuntarily committed from possessing firearms permanently, regardless of whether the commitment order is still in effect. However, Section 3 only prohibits possession by persons who are currently subject to the commitment or hospitalization order. Under the bill, when the commitment or hospitalization order ends, the state-level prohibition on firearm ownership ends. In addition, H.606 prohibits persons from possessing firearms if they were found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial for certain serious offenses. Section 3 adds the same increased penalties for second or subsequent offenses that were added in Section 2.

This section also includes a pathway for individuals to petition the court for relief from firearms prohibition using the same process as individuals barred from firearms possession for mental illness under the federal statute which is spelled out in 13 VSA § 4825.

Section 4 prohibits the possession of machine guns under Vermont law. Federal law already prohibits possession of machine guns, so by making it a state crime Section 4 permits a Vermont state’s attorney to bring a charge for the offense in a Vermont state court. The bill defines “machine gun” in the same way it is defined under federal law, namely, a firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot without manual reloading and with a single pull of the trigger. Included in this provision are the exceptions provided in federal law for machine guns that are registered under the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. 

And just like federal law, this section effectively prohibits devices that turn a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun, including auto sears like “Glock switches.” Such devices are easy to manufacture or 3D print and can shoot up to 1200 rounds per minute. They are present in Vermont and have been recovered at crime scenes. Twenty-eight states already prohibit these, and gun manufacturer Glock supports their prohibition.  

Machine guns that are still lawful to possess under federal law, and would therefore still be lawful to possess in Vermont, are those lawfully owned prior to 1986, when the federal prohibition went into effect, and those possessed by a state or federal government agency.

Again, if you own a machine gun legally under federal law, you will still be able to legally own a machine gun in Vermont.

Finally, Section 5 provides that the bill takes effect on passage

The bill passed out of your House Judiciary on a vote of 6-5-0 and we encourage members to vote “YES” in favor of common sense public safety measures. 

The following is my floor report for H.744.

H.744 amends Rule 3 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule generally involves arrests without a warrant. It lists the types of offenses for which an arrest may be made without a warrant, including felonies, misdemeanors that a law enforcement officer witnesses, and some nonwitnessed misdemeanor offenses. Rule 3 also outlines procedures for the arresting officer to follow after the arrest. 

H.744 amends subsection (k) in Rule 3 related to temporary release. The language can be found on page 805 of today’s calendar. The provision requires the law enforcement officer making the arrest to contact the court to determine whether the alleged offender should be released or held. Often, this rule comes into play after hours when the court is closed. The arresting officer will contact an on-call judge or judicial officer in those situations. The arresting officer must provide the judicial officer with an affidavit or sworn statement, including information that allows the judicial officer to determine whether to release or hold the individual. 

Under the current rule, which the legislature passed in 2019, the arresting officer’s affidavit or sworn statement must indicate the crimes to be charged by the officer. This language is problematic and has led to the need for this amendment – an officer does not make charging decisions. It is the prosecutor who makes the charging decision.

H.744 fixes this problem by striking this sentence. In its place, the bill clarifies that the presiding judge for each court MAY require that prosecuting attorneys indicate the charge or charges that they intend to file. The presiding judge may also require the prosecuting attorney to request any conditions of release, bail, or orders to hold without bail. 

This additional clarifying provision codifies existing practice.

A bit more background is necessary related to this bill. Both the legislature and the courts have authority under the Vermont Constitution to amend judicial rules within the confines of separation of powers. The legislature generally cannot amend a court rule that involves an inherently judicial function, but Rule 3 is not such a rule.  Indeed, both the legislature and the court have amended Rule 3 multiple times over the years. In fact, it was an amendment to subsection (K) made by the legislature back in 2019 that H.744 is now revising. 

The judicial branch proposes rules through committees, including the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. 

That Committee has proposed an amendment to subsection (K) different than the language in H.744. The Advisory Committee’s proposal would have provided that the presiding judge SHALL require the affidavit or sworn statement to include the charge or charges that the prosecuting attorney intends to file.  H.744, again, provides that the presiding judge MAY have such a requirement. The court’s proposal was mandatory, H.744 is discretionary.

According to witness testimony, H.744’s approach codifies existing practice. H. 744 addresses and clarifies the issues that the Criminal Rules Committee sought to address in its proposed Rule 3 amendment. In contrast, the Advisory Committee’s proposal would substantially change existing practice, and would place a significant, and often unnecessary burden, on law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys.

Accordingly, the Judiciary Committee has exercised its authority to amend subsection (K) in H.744, thus clarifying the legislature’s previous problematic amendment to that provision.

Under H.744, individual presiding judges will continue to determine if and when they need direct input from prosecuting attorneys as opposed to relying solely on law enforcement in determining whether to release or hold an alleged offender. 

The committee vote was 11-0 and we ask for your support.