Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's convictions for burglary and petit larceny, addressing two appellate claims. First, the court held that the defendant failed to preserve his claim that the trial court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations during the plea colloquy, and found no plain error. Second, the court agreed with the trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction on diminished capacity, concluding that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the defendant's incapacity to form the requisite criminal intent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court’s refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA during the plea colloquy violated the ADA
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on diminished capacity because the evidence supported such an instruction
Holdings
- The issue was not preserved for appeal because the defendant did not raise it at trial, and therefore no plain error exists.
- The trial court was correct in refusing the diminished‑capacity instruction because there was insufficient evidence and the defendant failed to give proper notice under V.R.Cr.P. 12.1.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the trial court was correct in refusing to include the diminished capacity charge because there was insufficient evidence to justify it.”
Factual background
Duford was charged with burglary and petit larceny. During a status conference the trial court considered a plea offer. Duford's doctor testified that his ability to understand the plea process was rudimentary and recommended concrete examples. Duford claimed he did not understand the plea offer. The court ultimately scheduled trial and denied a diminished‑capacity instruction.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted Duford, denied a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA during a plea colloquy, and refused a jury instruction on diminished capacity. Duford appealed.