Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court addresses the proper constitutional standard for evaluating preaccusation delay. It holds that a defendant must demonstrate actual substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or advance another impermissible purpose violating fundamental conceptions of justice. Applying that standard, the Court concludes that Geoffrey King failed to establish a due process violation and affirms the superior court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard governs a claim that preaccusation delay violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution?
- Whether the Vermont Constitution requires a different, more flexible standard for evaluating due-process claims based on preaccusation delay.
- Whether the approximately three-and-a-half-year delay substantially prejudiced the defendant or resulted from prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or advance another impermissible purpose.
Holdings
- To establish that preaccusation delay violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, a defendant must prove both actual substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or advance another impermissible purpose that violates fundamental conceptions of justice or the community's sense of fair play and decency.
- The standard for determining whether preaccusation delay violated the Vermont Constitution is the same as the federal standard: actual substantial prejudice plus prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or advance another impermissible purpose that violates fundamental conceptions of justice.
- King failed to establish actual substantial prejudice because claims that witnesses' memories dimmed or became inconsistent, without loss of evidence or unavailability of a key witness, did not constitute the required prejudice.
- King failed to establish that the State delayed prosecution to gain a tactical advantage or advance another impermissible purpose.
Key quotations
“We hold, therefore, that to establish that preaccusation delay violated the Due Process Clause, a defendant must demonstrate actual substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or to advance some other impermissible purpose that violates “fundamental conceptions of justice” or “the community’s sense of fair play and decency.”” (¶ 23)
“To prove that preaccusation delay violated a defendant’s due process rights under either the U.S. Constitution or the Vermont Constitution, the standard articulated in this opinion is adopted.” (¶ 42)
Factual background
The Department for Children and Families reported an alleged sexual assault to police in August 2008, and the initial investigation, including witness interviews, was substantially completed by February 2009. No criminal-case activity occurred until August 2012, when the complainant's mother contacted the State's Attorney's Office and the State confirmed that the complainant wished to pursue charges. The State then filed charges on August 30, 2012. At trial, the complainant and a witness gave inconsistent accounts and descriptions, but the defendant used those inconsistencies for impeachment; the trial ended in a hung jury.
Procedural history
The State charged King in August 2012 with aggravated sexual assault of a child and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. The superior court denied King's pretrial motion to dismiss based on the approximately three-and-a-half-year delay between the initial investigation and the filing of charges. After a 2014 trial ended in a hung jury, the court denied King's renewed motion for mistrial and dismissal with prejudice. In anticipation of retrial, the court certified the legal question to the Vermont Supreme Court, which affirmed.