Case Title: Benson v. Muscari

Citation: 172 Vt. 1, 769 A.2d 1291

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-02-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Benson v. Muscari (99-142); 172 Vt. 1; 769 A.2d 1291

[Filed 02-Feb-2001]

       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,
  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.

                                 No. 99-142

Ellyn Benson	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Windham Family Court

Vincent Muscari	                                 May Term, 2000

Ellen Holmes Maloney, J.

Sara Kagle and Geoffry F. Walsh, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Springfield, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

William E. Kraham, Brattleboro, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Defendant Vincent Muscari appeals from a final
  relief-from-abuse order issued  to plaintiff Ellyn Benson.  Defendant
  challenges certain conditions of the order, claiming: (1) the  1000-foot
  buffer-zone restriction violated his constitutional rights and represented
  an abuse of  discretion; (2) the firearms and deadly weapons restrictions
  were vague, overbroad, and unsupported  by the evidence and findings; (3)
  it was error to include the minor child in the order; and (4) the  findings
  were inadequate to support the five-year period of the order. We uphold all
  of the   challenged conditions except for the restriction on possession of
  deadly weapons, which in the  context of this case was vague and overbroad,
  and remand for reconsideration of that issue. 

       The final order for relief from abuse resulted from a violent incident
  in plaintiff's home. 

 

  Although they had not lived together or had children, plaintiff and
  defendant had a sexual  relationship for five years and, thus, were
  "household members" as defined in 15 V.S.A. § 1101(2).   On the evening in
  question, defendant entered plaintiff's home without announcing his
  presence and  encountered plaintiff in her second-floor bedroom with
  another man.  Defendant then physically  assaulted plaintiff, punching her
  in the face and dragging her by her arms down to the main floor.  
  Defendant told her that she would pay for the rest of her life for her
  behavior.  He destroyed much of  the kitchen.  A state trooper who arrived
  at the scene found plaintiff "covered in blood from head to  toe" with
  blood "running off her in streams."  At the hearing, plaintiff testified
  that defendant once  told her that if she was ever with another man, he
  would kill both of them.  She also testified that  defendant had possessed
  firearms in the past, and was uncertain whether he still possessed them.

       At the time of the hearing, plaintiff lived in Westminster with her
  nine-year-old daughter,  who is not related to defendant.  Plaintiff
  testified that she cleaned homes in the area, and worked in  an egg-roll
  business in Putney.  Her daughter attended school in Putney.  Defendant
  resided in   Brattleboro.

       Based on the foregoing, the trial court found that plaintiff had been
  abused by defendant, and  that she and her daughter were in immediate
  danger of further abuse.  The court issued a relief from  abuse order
  containing a number of terms, four of which are disputed here:

       (1) Defendant was ordered not to "place himself within 1000 feet of
  Plaintiff individually."

       (2) Defendant was ordered not to contact or harass plaintiff's child
  and not to place himself  within 1000 feet of the child.

       (3) Defendant was ordered "not to be in possession or control of any
  firearms or dangerous  weapons - excepting restaurant cutlery - which shall
  not be in his possession off restaurant 

 

  premises."

       (4) The order provided that it would remain in effect for five years,
  until February 10, 2004.

       Defendant first challenges the validity of the 1000-foot buffer zone
  on the grounds that it is  impossible for him to comply with the
  restriction, and that it will subject him to criminal  responsibility
  despite his inability to comply.  He asserts that the order denies him due
  process of  law, and violates his right to live in the community, to
  associate with others, and to travel.  In making  these arguments,
  defendant acknowledges that the Abuse Prevention Act specifically
  authorizes  "restrictions prohibiting the defendant from coming within a
  fixed distance of the plaintiff, the  children, the plaintiff's residence,
  or other designated locations where the plaintiff or children are  likely
  to spend time." 15 V.S.A. § 1103(c)(1).  He notes, however, that he lives
  in an area where  plaintiff is likely to shop or visit, and asserts that he
  might inadvertently violate the 1000-foot limit if  he fails to recognize
  her from that distance.

       It is well documented that "stay away" provisions, including buffer
  zones of protection,   implement important policy objectives underlying
  abuse prevention orders.  They are specific and  definite, minimizing
  interpretation issues.  See generally C. Klein & L. Orloff, Providing Legal 
  Protection for Battered Women: An Analysis of State Statutes and Case Law,
  21 Hofstra L. Rev.  801, 922-23 (1993).  They prohibit what otherwise may
  be viewed as inoffensive contact before it  matures into further incidents
  of abuse.  See id.  (clear and forceful stay away orders "ensure that the 
  beating which brought the petitioner to court to obtain the order is her
  last"); State v. Goyette, 166  Vt. 299, 302,