Case Title: State v. Ladue

Citation: 160 Vt. 630, 631 A.2d 236

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
EO.91-313; 160 Vt. 630; 631 A.2d 236




                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91-313

                              MARCH TERM, 1993


 State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                   }          Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                   }
 Dominic P. Ladue                  }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. 4088-8-90CnCr



              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:


      Defendant Dominic Ladue appeals from a judgment entered after his
 conditional plea of guilty of aggravated assault and violation of Vermont's
 hate-motivated-crimes statute, 13 V.S.A. { 1455.  Defendant challenges the
 constitutionality of 13 V.S.A. { 1455, claiming that the statute violates
 his First Amendment rights, is overbroad and violates his equal protection
 rights.  We affirm.

      Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault motivated by defendant's
 perception of the victim's sexual orientation.  Section 1455 provides that:

             A person who commits . . . any crime and whose conduct
           is maliciously motivated by the victim's actual or
           perceived . . . sexual orientation shall be subject to
           the following penalties:

           * * *

                (3) If the maximum penalty for the underlying crime
           is five years or more, the penalty for the underlying
           crime shall apply; however, the court shall consider the
           motivation of the defendant as a factor in sentencing.

 Defendant was sentenced to two-and-one-half to six years for the aggravated
 assault and one to four years for the hate-motivated crime.

      Defendant argues that imposing criminal penalties solely because of the
 thoughts that motivated his criminal acts violates the First Amendment.  The
 United States Supreme Court has recently addressed this issue and held the
 opposite.  See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 61 U.S.L.W. 4575, 4579 (June 11,
 1993).  The Court also held that penalty-enhancement statutes based on
 motivation are not overbroad and do not create a chilling effect on one's
 First Amendment rights.  Id. at 4578.

      Defendant's arguments under Vermont's free speech clause, Chapter I,
 Article 13 of the Vermont Constitution, were not raised at trial and are not
 preserved for appeal.  See In re Mullestein, 148 Vt. 179, 175,