Comprehensive Commentary on State of Vermont v. Jason Roberts: Abrogation of the Year-and-a-Day Rule

Introduction

State of Vermont v. Jason Roberts, 2024 Vt. 32, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Vermont on June 7, 2024, marks a significant legal milestone by abrogating the long-standing common-law year-and-a-day rule within the state. This commentary delves into the background of the case, the court's reasoning, the precedents cited, and the broader implications for Vermont's legal landscape.

Summary of the Judgment

The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's dismissal of a second-degree murder charge against Jason Roberts. The dismissal had previously rested on the application of the year-and-a-day rule—a common-law principle positing that murder charges are only valid if the victim dies within a year and a day of the defendant's act. The Supreme Court held that the justifications for this rule are outdated, particularly in light of advancements in medical science, and thus formally abrogated it both retroactively and prospectively. Additionally, the Court addressed and upheld the trial court's rejection of arguments related to the Double Jeopardy Clause and the defendant's plea agreement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced historical Vermont common law and English legal tradition to contextualize the year-and-a-day rule. Key precedents include:

• ROGERS v. TENNESSEE, 532 U.S. 451 (2001): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the retroactive abrogation of the year-and-a-day rule, deeming it an outdated common-law relic.
• State v. Reynolds, 2014 VT 16: Established that legal questions concerning common law should be reviewed without deference to lower courts.
• State v. Congress, 2014 VT 129: Noted the lack of direct engagement with the year-and-a-day rule, emphasizing the need for its reconsideration.
• English common law sources such as Blackstone's Commentaries and Coke's Institutes were also cited to trace the rule's origins and evolution.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's decision hinged on three primary considerations:

• Obsolescence of the Year-and-a-Day Rule: The Court determined that modern medical advancements have rendered the rule impractical and unjustifiable, as causation in death can now be reliably established beyond the previously mandated timeframe.
• Legislative Silence on Abrogation: Vermont's legislature, through statutes like 13 V.S.A. § 2301 and 13 V.S.A. § 4501, did not expressly abrogate the year-and-a-day rule. The Court inferred legislative intent based on the absence of language countering the common law.
• Judicial Authority to Modify Common Law: Emphasizing judicial flexibility, the Court asserted its authority to evolve common law principles to align with contemporary standards of justice and fairness.

Furthermore, the Court applied its established retroactivity principle, stating that changes in common law affecting substantive elements of crimes should apply both retroactively and prospectively unless doing so violates constitutional protections. Given that the year-and-a-day rule had not been actively enforced, retroactive abrogation did not pose due process concerns.

Impact

The abrogation of the year-and-a-day rule in Vermont signifies a progressive shift in the state's criminal law framework. The immediate implications include:

• Prosecution Flexibility: Prosecutors are now empowered to charge individuals with murder irrespective of the time elapsed between the defendant's action and the victim's death, provided causation can be established.
• Legal Certainty and Fairness: Aligning with modern forensic capabilities ensures that defendants cannot evade serious charges due to archaic legal constraints.
• Precedential Influence: This decision may influence other jurisdictions grappling with similar common-law doctrines, potentially fostering nationwide legal reforms concerning homicide prosecutions.

However, the dissent highlights potential risks, such as the possibility of prosecuting individuals years or decades after the fact, which could lead to challenges related to evidence preservation and witness reliability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Year-and-a-Day Rule

The year-and-a-day rule is a traditional legal doctrine stipulating that a defendant cannot be convicted of murder unless the victim dies within a year and a day of the defendant's harmful act. This rule was historically justified by the limitations in medical science, which made it challenging to determine causation over extended periods.

Common Law Abrogation

Abrogation refers to the formal elimination or abolition of a legal rule. In common law systems, courts can abrogate outdated or unjust rules to ensure the law evolves with societal changes.

Retroactivity vs. Prospectivity

• Retroactive Application: The legal change applies to both past and future cases, including ongoing and completed prosecutions.
• Prospective Application: The legal change only affects future cases, leaving past cases unaffected.

In this case, the Court chose retroactive application, meaning that the abolition of the year-and-a-day rule affects not only future prosecutions but also past cases that might have been dismissed under the old rule.

Double Jeopardy Clause

Protected under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents an individual from being tried twice for the same offense after either an acquittal or a conviction.

Conclusion