State v. Bruyette
| Decision Date | 11 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020-166,2020-166 |
| Citation | 2021 VT 43 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of Vermont v. Joseph Leland Bruyette |
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801, of any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
On Appeal from Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Criminal Division
Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, Montpelier, and Robert C. Menzel, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, and Annie Manhardt, Prisoners' Rights Office, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ.
¶ 1. REIBER, C.J. Defendant Joseph Bruyette appeals the criminal division's order compelling him to provide a DNA sample for inclusion in the Vermont DNA database. He argues that 20 V.S.A. § 1933(b) excuses him from providing a DNA sample because he has previously provided a sample, and that this issue is properly considered at a sampling-compulsion hearing. We affirm.
¶ 2. Defendant was convicted of one count of burglary and three counts of sexual assault in 1990. He has been continuously incarcerated in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) since 1987. For most of this time, defendant has been held in facilities out of state.
¶ 3. In 1998, the Vermont Legislature passed a law creating a state DNA database. 1997, No. 160 (Adj. Sess.). The statute requires certain persons to submit a DNA sample for inclusion in the database, including "a person who was convicted in a court in this State of a designated crime prior to April 29, 1998 and, after such date, is . . . in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections [serving a term of imprisonment]." 20 V.S.A. § 1933(a)(2)(A). The statutory definition of "designated crime" includes any felony and "any crime for which a person is required to register as a sex offender" under Vermont law. Id. § 1932(12)(A), (C). Defendant's convictions qualify as designated crimes, so the statute requires him to submit a DNA sample. See id. § 1933(a)(2)(A).
¶ 4. DOC has no record of defendant ever providing a DNA sample for the Vermont DNA database. DOC records reflect that defendant consistently refused to provide a sample each year from 2005 through 2017. Most recently, defendant refused DOC's request that he provide a DNA sample in 2019. This time, DOC asked him to sign a refusal form, and defendant refused to sign the form.
¶ 5. Consequently, the State filed a motion in the criminal division to compel defendant to provide a DNA sample. See id. § 1935(a) (). Defendant opposed the motion based on his belief that he had already provided three DNA samples while in DOC custody and contended that the statute relieves him from having to submit another sample. See id. § 1933(b) (). He sought a hearing to present evidence of his prior DNA submissions. See id. § 1935(b) ().
¶ 6. The criminal division held a hearing to determine whether defendant was required to submit a DNA sample. The State first called Rebekah Wilkins, a forensic chemist with theVermont Forensic Laboratory who administers Vermont's DNA database for the Vermont Department of Public Safety (DPS). She explained that Vermont's database is a state-level database, meaning that it hosts DNA samples collected by the State and searches them against state-level unsolved crimes to match or exclude the profile. She testified that she also uploads some Vermont DNA samples to the federal-level database, where samples are searched against unsolved crimes across the country. However, she could not see what other states have uploaded to the federal level or search another state's system. She explained that each state collects DNA and operates its own DNA database separately, following its own state law. She testified that DPS does not consider DNA collected by another state as satisfying the Vermont collection requirement and that DPS has "never accepted a DNA sample collected using another state's collection processing kit." To collect a DNA sample from a Vermont inmate who is incarcerated in an out-of-state facility, DPS provides a Vermont sample-collection card for the sample to be collected and returned, and then uploaded to the Vermont database.
¶ 7. The State next called Cheryl Elovirta, a DOC employee who works as a liaison to DPS to ensure proper collection of DNA samples. She explained that when DOC collects DNA samples, it uses the sample-collection cards provided by DPS. She testified that DOC does not consider another state's collection of DNA for its own database as compliant with Vermont's DNA-collection statute because the statute requires DOC to provide the DNA, and the DPS card ensures that the sample is collected correctly. She confirmed that DOC cannot access another state's DNA database—and in fact, cannot access the Vermont DNA database.
¶ 8. Defendant testified that while incarcerated in DOC custody, he provided DNA samples on three occasions. He recalled that he first provided a DNA sample in Minnesota in 1998 and said that his caseworker told him that Vermont had just created a DNA database and requested his DNA. Next, he recalled providing a DNA sample in Florida when he was transferred to a facility there. Finally, he recalled providing a DNA sample in Kentucky in 2004, and that acaseworker told him that Vermont officials were collecting the sample. Defendant testified that about a week after providing the Kentucky sample, he heard a rumor that Vermont officials had made an error in collection that spoiled the samples and planned to recollect samples the following week, but no one came back. Then, he recalled that a caseworker asked to collect a DNA sample in Kentucky in 2005, and defendant refused because he had previously provided three samples. Subsequently, he said that he had been asked to provide a DNA sample "just about every single year" and continually refused.
¶ 9. Defendant submitted an exhibit from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement documenting its request for defendant's DNA. He contended that, under Florida law, DOC and DPS would be entitled to receive Florida's sample of his DNA, but neither department ever requested it. He then offered to provide another DNA sample if DOC first sought to receive defendant's sample from Florida. At the close of the hearing, the court gave the parties an opportunity to negotiate a resolution and gave the State an opportunity to investigate the samples that defendant allegedly provided. Additionally, the court requested supplemental briefing on the proper interpretation of 20 V.S.A. § 1933(b).
¶ 10. After the hearing, the State submitted a memorandum with affidavits from witnesses Wilkins and Elovirta regarding their investigations into defendant's previously submitted DNA samples. Wilkins averred that she contacted the administrator of Florida's DNA database, who confirmed that the Florida database has defendant's DNA and that the sample was collected in accordance with Florida law, but said that she could not share it with Vermont because Florida does not share database samples. Next, Elovirta explained that she reviewed defendant's case file and the affidavit of the caseworker who attempted to collect defendant's DNA in Kentucky in 2005. She stated that the caseworker's affidavit mentioned an alleged collection in Minnesota, but she determined that the Minnesota Department of Corrections had no record of a sample being taken from defendant. The caseworker's affidavit did not mention a prior collectionin Kentucky, and there was no record of any DNA collection in Kentucky that was spoiled or lost. Accordingly, the State argued that defendant had failed to provide a DNA sample to the Vermont database, even if he had provided samples to other states, and that the court should defer to DOC and DPS's interpretation that a sample submitted to another state cannot be accepted into the Vermont database and thus does not satisfy Vermont's statutory requirements.
¶ 11. Defendant likewise submitted a memorandum that included documentation from the Minnesota Department of Corrections demonstrating that he provided a DNA sample, pursuant to Minnesota law, in 1994. Based on this DNA sample and the sample provided to Florida in 2001, both taken while he was in DOC custody, he argued that under the plain language of § 1933(b), he was not required to provide another DNA sample because he had previously submitted a sample.
¶ 12. The criminal division granted the State's motion to compel defendant to submit a DNA sample. The court found that defendant provided a DNA sample to the State of Florida in 2001 but found that the sample was not taken for submission to the Vermont DNA database. The court also found that defendant provided a DNA sample to Minnesota in 1998 and another sample to Kentucky in 2004. While defendant testified that these samples were for the Vermont DNA database, the court explained that there was inconclusive evidence to find that either sample was taken for submission to the Vermont database.
¶ 13. The court concluded that under 20 V.S.A. § 1935, the Legislature limited the scope of the issues at a DNA sampling-compulsion hearing to whether the person was convicted of a designated crime, pursuant to § 1933(a), or whether the DNA-database ...
To continue reading
Request your trial