Title: State v. Delabruere

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
 
 
                                No. 86-128
 
 
State of Vermont                        Supreme Court
 
      v.                                On Appeal from
                                        District Court of Vermont,
Lisette DeLaBruere and                  Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
Richard DeLaBruere
                                        March Term, 1988
 
 
George F. Ellison, J.
 
Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Elizabeth J. Grant and David Tartter,
  Assistant Attorneys General, and Arthur Gallagher and George Kelly, Law
  Clerks (On the Brief), Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee
 
Gregory S. Clayton of Downs Rachlin & Martin, St. Johnsbury, for defendants-
  appellants
 
Jean A. Swantko, Island Pond, for amicus curiae Church at Island Pond
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, (FN1) Gibson, Dooley and Mahady, JJ.
 
 
     DOOLEY, J.   This is an interlocutory appeal brought by defendants
Richard and Lisette DeLaBruere.  The defendants were each charged with one
count of violating the compulsory education requirement of 16 V.S.A. {{
1121 and 1127, for failing to ensure that their son, Luke, attended a school
that met the requirements of Vermont law.  Before trial, the defendants
moved to dismiss the informations on the grounds that:  (1) Vermont's com-
pulsory education requirement, as applied to them, violated their right to
the free exercise of their religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution and Chapter I, Article 3 of the Vermont
Constitution; (2) the compulsory education statutes, 16 V.S.A. {{ 1121 and
1127, are unconstitutionally vague; (3) this criminal prosecution violates
defendants' right to direct the education of their child; (4) the inform-
ations do not charge a crime; (5) the informations fail to charge the
essential elements of the crime; and (6) the informations fail to protect
defendants against reprosecution.  The trial court conducted a hearing on
the motion and received evidence relating to defendants' religious beliefs,
the nature and conduct of the school which defendants' child attends, and
the interests that the State views as paramount in enforcing the statutes
involved.  The trial court then denied the motion, and this interlocutory
appeal followed.  We agree with the trial court's decision in denying the
motion to dismiss, and, therefore, we remand the case for trial.
     Vermont's compulsory education statute requires that:
 
            A person having the control of a child between the
          ages of seven and sixteen years shall cause the child to
          attend an approved public school or an approved or re-
          porting private school for the full number of days for
          which that school is held, unless:
               (1)  the child is mentally or physically unable so
          to attend; or
               (2)  is being furnished with an approved program of
          home instruction; or
               (3)  has completed the tenth grade; or
               (4)  is excused by the superintendent or a majority
          of the school directors as provided in this chapter.
16 V.S.A. { 1121. (FN2) A parent who fails to comply with { 1121, upon notice of
noncompliance from a teacher or principal to a truant officer pursuant to {
1126, may be subjected to a truancy proceeding under { 1127.  See State v.
LaBarge, 134 Vt. 276, 278-79,