Introduction

State of Vermont v. Geromy Wells, 2025 Vt. 5, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Vermont on February 7, 2025, marks a significant development in the interpretation of the unlawful mischief statute under Vermont law. This case involves the appellant, Geromy Wells, who was convicted of misdemeanor unlawful mischief, disorderly conduct, and attempted assault on a law enforcement officer. The crux of the appeal hinged on whether Wells' actions — urinating, spitting, and rubbing his genitals on parts of his holding cell — constituted "damage" under 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c). The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for unlawful mischief, setting a precedent for a broader interpretation of "damage" within the statute.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Vermont upheld Geromy Wells' conviction for misdemeanor unlawful mischief. The court concluded that Wells' actions in his holding cell — specifically, urinating, spitting, and rubbing his genitals on the property — resulted in a substantial impairment to the cell's use, thereby fulfilling the statutory definition of "damage" under 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c). The State had presented evidence that these actions led to the closure of the holding cell and incurred $75 in cleaning costs. Despite the minimal financial impact, the court found this sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. The dissenting opinion argued that the impairment was not substantial enough to constitute "damage," emphasizing a narrower interpretation of the term.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several precedents to support the broad interpretation of "damage." Notably:

• STATE v. ELLIS, 2009 VT 74: Established the standard for reviewing Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal, emphasizing de novo review.
• State v. A.P., 2021 VT 90: Highlighted the legislative intent in statutory interpretation, advocating for plain and ordinary meanings.
• State v. Charette, 2018 VT 48: Discussed handling ambiguities in statutory language by considering the broader context and legislative purpose.
• New York v. Collins, 733 N.Y.S.2d 289 (App. Div. 2001): Cited to illustrate a broad interpretation of "damage" that includes impairment to property use.

These precedents collectively supported the court's stance that "damage" in the context of the unlawful mischief statute should be interpreted broadly, encompassing any actions that impair the use or function of property.

Legal Reasoning

The court began by analyzing the statutory language of 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c), noting that "damage" was not explicitly defined. Relying on State v. Gauthier, the court affirmed that undefined terms should be given their plain and ordinary meanings. Defendant's reliance on a narrow definition of "damage" was countered by broader dictionary definitions and legal standards, emphasizing that "damage" includes any impairment to the property's value, usefulness, or normal function.

The court compared the defendant's actions to those in New York v. Collins, where severe impairment justified a finding of damage. Although acknowledging the differences in severity, the court determined that any intentional act leading to impairment—even if temporary and minimal—falls within the statute's scope. The differentiation hinged on legislative intent to prohibit a wide range of damaging behaviors, not strictly those causing physical destruction.

The dissenting opinion, however, argued for a more restrained interpretation, focusing on substantial and lasting impairments. The dissent believed that Wells' actions did not rise to the level of "substantial impairment" required to constitute "damage."

Impact

This judgment broadens the interpretation of "damage" under the unlawful mischief statute, potentially criminalizing a wider array of disruptive behaviors that impair property use or function, even if they do not cause physical destruction. Future cases may reference this decision to either support or challenge convictions based on similar conduct. Additionally, law enforcement agencies might adjust their protocols and training to account for the expanded scope of what constitutes "damage," ensuring that minor impairments are appropriately managed to avoid unnecessary legal consequences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

"Damage" in Unlawful Mischief: Under 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c), "damage" is interpreted broadly to include any impairment to property that affects its use or function, not limited to physical destruction. This can encompass actions that make property dirty, unsanitary, or otherwise unusable, even temporarily.

Rule 29(a) – Judgment of Acquittal: A motion under Rule 29(a) challenges whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence for a conviction. The court reviews this motion de novo, meaning it considers the issue anew without deference to the lower court's decision.

Substantial Impairment: Refers to significant and lasting negative effects on the use or functionality of property. In this case, the impairment was deemed substantial enough to warrant the classification of the defendant's actions as "damage."

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Vermont's decision in State of Vermont v. Geromy Wells underscores a broad interpretation of "damage" within the unlawful mischief statute. By affirming that temporary and minimal impairments to property usability meet the statutory definition of "damage," the court has expanded the scope of behaviors that can be criminally prosecuted under this provision. This ruling emphasizes the legislature's intent to cover a wide range of damaging actions, ensuring that even non-physical impairments to property are subject to legal consequences. The dissenting opinion highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between legislative intent and the practical implications of broad statutory definitions. Moving forward, this judgment will serve as a key reference point in interpreting similar statutes and guiding both legal practitioners and law enforcement in their understanding of property damage.