Voluntary Absence at Restitution Hearings Constitutes Waiver: An In-Depth Commentary on State v. Brittany L. Knight, Supreme Court of Vermont (2025)

I. Introduction

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Vermont Supreme Court (three-justice panel) affirmed the restitution order. In doing so, it:

• Held that proceeding with the restitution hearing in Knight’s voluntary absence did not constitute plain error, implicitly treating the absence as a waiver under V.R.Cr.P. 43(b)(1).
• Found sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that the victim’s expenses for eyeglasses and dentures were a direct result of the domestic assault, thus meeting the statutory “direct link” requirement for restitution under 13 V.S.A. § 7043 and related provisions.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State v. Grace, 2016 VT 113
   – Addressed the scope of a defendant’s right to be present at “critical stages.” Knight invoked Grace to argue the restitution hearing was such a stage. The Court distinguished Grace by noting that—even assuming a critical stage—the defendant must show prejudice, which Knight could not.
2. State v. Stanley, 2015 VT 117
   – Recognized that a defendant who voluntarily absents himself from sentencing waives the right to be present. The Court analogized restitution to sentencing, applying the Stanley waiver principle.
3. State v. Ray, 2019 VT 51
   – Articulated the “very high bar” for plain error. The Ray framework structured the Court’s four-prong analysis (error, obviousness, prejudice, and effect on reputation).
4. State v. Baker, 2017 VT 91
   – Clarified that restitution requires a proximate cause, not mere “but-for” causation. The Court distinguished Baker from Knight, observing that physical injuries to the face make eyeglass/dentures damage directly foreseeable.
5. State v. Gorton, 2014 VT 1
   – Established the “direct link” requirement and deference to trial-court discretion on amount of restitution.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Presence/Plain Error Dimension
   • Step 1 – Assuming Right Exists: The Court assumed arguendo that restitution is a “critical stage.”
   • Step 2 – Voluntary Absence Waiver: Rule 43(b)(1) expressly permits continuation when a defendant “voluntarily absents” after proceedings commence. Knight had actual notice; her reason (work) was voluntary, and no continuance was sought. Under Stanley, this equals waiver.
   • Step 3 – Plain-Error Elements: Even if error, not “obvious”; no prejudice identified; hence no plain error.
2. Causation/Restitution Dimension
   • Statutory Framework: 13 V.S.A. §§ 7043, 5355 & 5356; Victim’s Compensation Board cannot pay unless injury is a direct result of crime. The Board’s payment, therefore, is prima facie evidence of causation.
   • Proof Standard: Preponderance (more likely than not). Court relied on: guilty plea admissions; contemporaneous medical bills; victim advocate testimony; timing (days after assault); nature of injuries (face/eyeglasses/dentures).
   • Distinguishing Baker: In Baker, the loss was (spouse’s lost wages). In Knight, facial blows predictably damage eyeglasses/dentures—thus direct and foreseeable.

C. Impact of the Judgment

The decision, albeit a three-justice entry order (non-precedential under Vt. R.A.P. 33.1), still signals several practical rules likely to influence Vermont trial courts:

• Waiver by Voluntary Non-Appearance: Defendants who skip restitution hearings without timely continuance requests risk forfeiting presence-based objections.
• Use of Circumstantial Evidence: Trial judges may infer causation from timing, injury type, and Victim Compensation payments, even absent direct testimony from the victim or treating providers.
• Restitution Hearings ≈ Sentencing: Restitution may be treated analogously to sentencing for Rule 43 purposes, reinforcing trial-court authority to proceed.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Plain Error: A mistake so clear and serious that an appellate court corrects it even if the defendant did not object at trial. Four-part test: error, obviousness, prejudice, and damage to public trust.
• Preponderance of Evidence: The fact-finder must believe a proposition is more likely true than not (sometimes phrased as tipping the scales by the “weight of a feather”).
• Proximate Cause vs. “But-For” Cause: – But-for: Event X would not have happened without act Y. – Proximate: Legal closeness; only harms that are natural, direct, and foreseeable results qualify. Restitution uses the narrower proximate cause.
• Victim’s Compensation Board: A state fund that pays victims’ unreimbursed expenses. When it pays, it becomes a “victim” for purposes of restitution and can seek reimbursement from offenders.
• Critical Stage: A point in the criminal process where the defendant’s rights may be significantly affected. Presence (or counsel) is usually required.

V. Conclusion

State v. Knight reinforces two key propositions under Vermont law:

1. A defendant’s voluntary absence from a scheduled restitution hearing operates as a waiver of the right to be present, allowing the court to proceed without committing plain error.
2. Restitution may be based on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences when that evidence satisfies the preponderance standard and shows a proximate, not merely speculative, link between the crime and the victim’s losses.

Although the order itself is non-precedential, the Court’s reasoning supplies persuasive authority that trial judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel will likely rely on when navigating restitution disputes in Vermont. The decision narrows avenues for defendants to challenge restitution on presence grounds and underscores the evidentiary leeway courts possess in connecting medical or property expenses to violent crimes.

© 2025 – Commentary prepared for educational purposes.