State v. Trombley
Vermont Supreme Court
807 A.2d 400 (2002)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
In February 2000, George Demarais and Matthew Trombley (defendant) were involved in a bar fight. Shortly after the altercation, the men left the bar. According to Demarais, Trombley then grabbed Demarais from behind and punched him numerous times, compelling Demarais to brandish a small knife in self-defense. Trombley testified that he acted in self-defense and that in an effort to stop Demarais from stabbing him, Trombley repeatedly punched Demarais after feeling the sharp pains of Demarais’s knife. Both men were injured during the struggle. The State of Vermont (plaintiff) charged Trombley with aggravated assault under 13 V.S.A. § 1024(a)(1) for “purposely caus[ing] bodily injury to another.” The trial judge instructed the jury that Trombley could be found guilty of the offense if he either acted (1) purposely, with the conscious purpose of causing Demarais serious bodily harm, or (2) knowingly, understanding that he acted under circumstances in which it was practically certain that his conduct would cause Demarais serious bodily injury. The trial judge also provided instructions on the justification of self-defense. The jury convicted Trombley of aggravated assault. Trombley appealed, contending that the trial judge erred by permitting the jury to consider whether Trombley acted knowingly, because the statute under which Trombley was charged required purposeful action.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Amestoy, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.