State v. Humphries

Decision Date31 March 2022
Docket Number22-AP-046
PartiesState of Vermont v. Terrance Humphries*
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Criminal Division CASE NO. 22-CR-01428 Trial Judge: David R. Fenster

ENTRY ORDER

William D. Cohen, Associate Justice.

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Defendant Terrance Humphries appeals the superior court's order setting conditions of release. He argues that the superior court abused its discretion in imposing a condition prohibiting him from buying, having, or using firearms because the condition is not the least restrictive means necessary to protect the public and therefore violates his Second Amendment rights. For the reasons discussed below, I affirm.

Defendant is charged with domestic assault pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 1042. The charge arises from an incident on February 16 2022, in which defendant allegedly struck his wife (complainant) in the face with a closed fist during an argument while sitting in their vehicle in her mother's driveway. Upon being placed under arrest later that day defendant informed the police officers that he had a firearm on his person, and an officer removed his firearm without issue. Complainant did not make any statements to police about the firearm being present, used, or threatened during the argument.

Defendant denied to the officers that he struck complainant and stated that he did not know how complainant came to be injured, but he admitted to wanting to hit complainant. Defendant acknowledged that he and complainant had an argument, during which his firearm was tucked between the seat and the car's center console. He asserted that he removed the firearm from the vehicle and placed it into his front waistband after he and complainant arrived at their shared residence. Defendant indicated that he brings his firearm with him most places.

At arraignment, the superior court imposed six conditions of release, including condition thirteen, which orders defendant to "NOT buy, have or use any firearms or dangerous/deadly weapons." Defendant objected to condition thirteen during arraignment. The court acknowledged defendant's objection and that defendant had not used or threatened use of the firearm during the argument. However, the court also noted that the firearm "was within close proximity of the alleged assault" and that defendant had taken the firearm with him when he exited the vehicle. In imposing condition thirteen, the court referenced the significantly increased risk of deadly violence in domestic-violence situations where firearms are accessible. Defendant appeals the imposition of condition thirteen.

The order imposing conditions of release "shall be affirmed if it is supported by the proceedings below." 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b). "[I]n assessing whether the order is supported by the proceedings, we recognize that the [superior] court possesses a high degree of discretion in analyzing the evidence before it . . . [and] reverse only if the court has abused its discretion." State v. Bailey, 2017 VT 18, ¶ 9, 204 Vt. 294. When considering conditions of release to protect the public, the superior court must impose "the least restrictive" conditions "that will reasonably ensure protection of the public." 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(2). The statute lists several factors for a court to consider when imposing conditions of release, including "the nature and circumstances of the offense charged" and the defendant's "character and mental condition." Id. § 7554(b)(2).

On appeal, defendant argues that imposing condition thirteen was an abuse of the superior court's discretion and was not the least restrictive means necessary of protecting public safety. He asserts that, despite the firearm's close physical proximity to the altercation, the alleged domestic assault did not involve the firearm and therefore does not justify the imposition of condition thirteen. He questions the court's reliance on social science establishing the connection between firearms and lethal domestic violence, stating, "[o]ne cannot . . . assume that every alleged domestic violence-type situation is more deadly when a firearm is readily accessible." Defendant argues that the other imposed conditions sufficiently protect the public, pointing to the conditions prohibiting him from contacting complainant and the fact that he has no history of violating court orders. Finally, defendant argues that condition thirteen unduly burdens his Second Amendment rights.

The record supports the imposition of condition thirteen. At arraignment, the court considered the circumstances of the alleged domestic assault and the well-established connection between access to firearms and significantly increased risk of lethal domestic violence. Although defendant is not accused of a crime involving the firearm in question, he is accused of having committed an act of domestic violence in close physical proximity to a firearm; based on the description defendant provided to police, the firearm was in arm's length of defendant during the alleged altercation. Further, defendant told police that he took the firearm with him when he left the vehicle after the argument, and he additionally stated that he brings his firearm with him most places. Considering the volatile nature of domestic violence and the speed at which an incident of violence can become lethal when firearms are accessible, the firearm's presence during the alleged domestic assault is sufficiently relevant to create a factual nexus. By defendant's own admission, the firearm is almost always on his person. In the interest of protecting public safety, condition thirteen prevents defendant from escalating any further instances of domestic violence to the level of lethality that access to a firearm can cause.

I now turn to defendant's Second Amendment arguments. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595 (2008), the United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. However, "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Id. at 626. The Supreme Court emphasized "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Id. at 635. This distinction of "law-abiding" is critical; the Second Amendment does not preclude the government from reasonably restricting (or, as the Supreme Court put it, "disqualifying]") the right to bear arms for individuals accused or convicted of crimes. Id. at 635.

This Court has not considered Second Amendment rights in the context of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT