Criminal Division Jurisdiction under 13 V.S.A. § 2658 for Vacating Convictions of Human Trafficking Victims

Introduction

State v. Jessica L. Morrill, 2025 VT 19, is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Vermont addressing whether motions to vacate criminal convictions under 13 V.S.A. § 2658 should be heard in the Criminal Division or the Civil Division of the Vermont Superior Court. The State of Vermont filed a petition for extraordinary relief under V.R.A.P. 21 after the Criminal Division granted respondent Jessica Morrill’s motion to vacate, strike adjudication, and expunge her record on the ground that she was a victim of human trafficking. The State contended that such motions fall within the civil, not criminal, jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the Criminal Division has subject-matter jurisdiction over § 2658 motions and denied the petition.

Summary of the Judgment

In April 2019, Jessica Morrill pled nolo contendere to assault and robbery. In September 2023 she filed a § 2658 motion in the Criminal Division, asserting that her conviction resulted from human trafficking and seeking vacatur and expungement. The State objected, arguing the Criminal Division lacked jurisdiction and pointing to the Civil Division as the proper forum. The trial court disagreed, granted Morrill’s motion, and expunged her record. The State sought extraordinary relief, claiming a jurisdictional usurpation. The Supreme Court of Vermont, applying de novo statutory interpretation, concluded that:

The plain language of § 2658 does not specify a forum, but its placement in Title 13 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) and the absence of an affirmative transfer to the Civil Division indicate Criminal Division jurisdiction.
Other provisions in the Human Trafficking subchapter explicitly designate the Civil or Family Division when appropriate; § 2658 contains no such designation.
Subject-matter jurisdiction therefore rests with the Criminal Division, and the State’s petition for extraordinary relief was denied.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on the following key precedents and statutory-interpretation principles:

State v. Saari, 152 Vt. 510 (1989) – extraordinary relief under mandamus confined to exceptional “usurpation of power.”
Bacigalupo v. Bacigalupo, 2022 VT 43 – subject-matter jurisdiction shaped by legislative grant and interpreted de novo.
State v. Blake, 2017 VT 68 – plain statutory language is the starting point; statutes in pari materia should be read in harmony.
Lambell Lumber Corp. v. Newstress Int’l, Inc., 2007 VT 83 – Civil Division is presumptively a court of general jurisdiction unless another division’s jurisdiction is specified.
State v. Tierney, 138 Vt. 163 (1980) – statutes must be construed to give effect to every clause.
Carpin v. Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 2024 VT 27 – different statutory terms will be interpreted to have different meanings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court engaged in a structured statutory analysis:

Textual Placement: Section 2658 is part of Title 13 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) under Chapter 60 (Human Trafficking) – traditionally within Criminal Division jurisdiction.
Comparative Scheme: Other provisions in the same subchapter (e.g., §§ 2652(c)(1)(B), 2656) explicitly grant jurisdiction to the Family or Civil Division when intended. Section 2662 (private civil causes of action) likewise specifies the Civil Division.
In Pari Materia: The absence of a forum designation in § 2658, contrasted with explicit designations elsewhere, implies Criminal Division jurisdiction by negative inference.
Statutory Harmony: Criminal Division already handles convictions, affirmative defenses, sentencing, and expungements (§ 7601(1)). Section 2658’s relief (vacatur and expungement) aligns with existing Criminal Division functions.
Precedential Distinctions: Post-conviction relief (PCR) under §§ 7131–7137 differs in nature, scope, and custody requirement from § 2658 motions; analogy to PCR does not override the statutory scheme.

Impact

The decision clarifies jurisdictional boundaries and streamlines procedures for human-trafficking–related vacatur motions:

Court administration: Criminal Division dockets now include § 2658 motions, avoiding forum-selection disputes and delays.
Victim access to relief: Consistent process for victims to seek vacatur and expungement without technical jurisdictional bars.
Legislative guidance: Signals to the Legislature that explicit forum designation is critical when departing from the default Criminal Division.
Future cases: Lower courts will apply the Court’s reasoning to maintain Criminal Division jurisdiction unless another division is expressly identified.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus/Extraordinary Relief: A rare remedy compelling a court to act within its lawful power. It requires a clear legal right and an improper usurpation of power.
In Pari Materia: A method of interpreting related statutes together to ensure consistency and avoid conflicts.
Affirmative Defense vs. Collateral Attack: An affirmative defense injects new facts justifying conduct (e.g., human trafficking); a collateral attack challenges procedural or constitutional defects in conviction or sentencing.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The “more likely than not” standard—used in both civil cases and certain criminal-procedural contexts (e.g., affirmative defenses).
Nolo Contendere: A plea where the defendant does not contest charges but accepts conviction without admitting guilt.

Conclusion

State v. Morrill establishes that motions to vacate convictions obtained as a result of human trafficking under 13 V.S.A. § 2658 fall squarely within the Criminal Division’s jurisdiction. By reading the statutory scheme as a whole, giving effect to explicit forum designations elsewhere, and recognizing the Criminal Division’s expertise in convictions, appeals, and expungements, the Supreme Court of Vermont has provided clear guidance to practitioners and trial courts. This decision ensures that victims of human trafficking can pursue post-conviction relief without procedural jurisdictional hurdles and reinforces the principle that absent explicit legislative language to the contrary, criminal-process matters remain within the Criminal Division.

For the Court:
Associate Justice