[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6058600,"mediaKeyId","3297026-687c6512de4e43d8ad4f39e8d9f48e86","parentId",3297026,"title","Committee concurs with Senate amendment to H‑41, moves burial‑transport penalty to civil fine and adds criminal desecration provisions","audioSeconds",1635,"startMs",1575000,"endMs",3210000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297026-687c6512de4e43d8ad4f39e8d9f48e86&start=1575&end=3210","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297026-687c6512de4e43d8ad4f39e8d9f48e86/thumbnail_1575000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6058600/Vermont/Committee-concurs-with-Senate-amendment-to-H41-moves-burialtransport-penalty-to-civil-fine-and-adds-criminal-desecration-provisions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058600-57b87ae13f167ebaf474b7abd4ce0c88/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182944&Signature=jyilfOaUTIjqBdXvCUqjrlMQesqoUxR0peE1lW9H8wXelPj5KoPkSu07aZ4oun1qULA80J2flgT2QiprPtfDreIdo9TDPVMK7L7xPV24USYXItV6oCJygw-4jlkDpZilGibzTMjSC6I2u-ZEe3wdsD-KWR6rx0kU92W4w5u528DhiPYFjKW0dVWc1fbiCM4INadymyByKKVs5jH-j4c0Mdc~diwnPTgPTOlUvV9YJ2X518eiwU1gGGbyEbMNqZjQz~ndSlYy2JO8rVaVHTmm4HQ9umGLYp7QA4zn0OINQ59dlAd57V6v0D~iR6-Co2adA3R4N3x1gX2t92l2w-2fjw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-15T02:19:06Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee voted May 14 to concur with the Senate amendment to H‑41, a bill that creates new criminal offenses for intentional abuse or desecration of a dead body and that changes an existing burial‑transport violation in the public‑health code from a potential five‑year felony to a civil penalty with a $1,000 fine.

Committee members said the change was intended to avoid imposing a felony on funeral directors or private citizens for administrative or permit timing errors while preserving strong criminal penalties for intentionally abusive conduct. The committee framed the bill as filling a gap the state lacked: members said Vermont was one of the few states without a criminal statute specifically addressing certain types of abuse of a dead body.

Jessa Barnard of the Vermont Medical Society told the committee that, aside from changing the penalty from criminal to civil for the burial‑transport provision, the bill otherwise leaves the public‑health statutory framework intact and does not otherwise alter medical‑facility rules on handling remains. Ben from the office of the administrative counsel told the committee that an earlier House draft had omitted explicit “civil penalty” language by mistake; the omission was corrected in the Senate amendment and the committee concurrence aligns the text with the committee’s prior intent.

Representative Brett Coffin raised a memorandum circulated to senators and asked whether the statute might be read to apply in miscarriage or stillbirth situations; committee members and staff said Title 18 public‑health statutes (including burial and birth chapters) remain the principal authority for those matters and that the bill’s criminal provisions address intentionally abusive acts such as burning, mutilating or disfiguring a body. Committee members noted that prosecutors can still bring obstruction and related charges if a body is moved to hide an underlying crime.

The bill retains criminal penalties for intentionally abusive acts: committee discussion identified a base penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine for those offenses, with aggravated offenses carrying higher maximums (committee discussion referenced aggravated terms up to 15 years and higher fines). The burial‑transport violation (moving or transporting remains without a permit) was changed to a civil violation with the $1,000 fine to avoid imposing a felony for clerical or timing errors such as a lapsed permit, committee members said.

After discussion the chair called for a motion to concur with the Senate amendment; a committee member moved and another seconded. Members voted by raised hands; the chair recognized the result and the committee proceeded. The record at the hearing does not include an exact roll‑call tally in the transcript excerpt provided to the committee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary - 2025-05-14 - 9:15 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee voted May 14 to concur with the Senate amendment to H‑41, converting a burial‑transport violation to a civil penalty and creating new criminal offenses for intentional abuse or desecration of a dead body.","taxTitle","Judiciary, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35152,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6058604,"House Judiciary Committee debates pro se access to sealed records and embezzlement waiting period",1576,0,1576000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297026-687c6512de4e43d8ad4f39e8d9f48e86&start=0&end=1576","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297026-687c6512de4e43d8ad4f39e8d9f48e86/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6058604/Vermont/House-Judiciary-Committee-debates-pro-se-access-to-sealed-records-and-embezzlement-waiting-period","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058604-046307f6439f4ee7b23b89d3c3ce1545/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182944&Signature=Rkq2AkPmxP315RCVlX1a8aYK8~ZYCBCI~8SEKpebXDuceIkP0UlJJYfEmXq4QlXXLWR4-17fgmJAAUuP4W8ZcIcfsJbFpqgL~zSQbUxhwx7cWkRlX7DTfHY~RKsGGMtS6DCHDx9gR8XtltAiU9Oq7vSd0U3ygdkg-jeeuUEUTap~nMrIaYGc~MEEEnCnj9aiJweDCt~JYou8SuYdFjjaZS8Uv6sg0cOJKut3sjKEXzFI2AIPpmv7-GjpJOZiJmrMp5tGNWHwoZOeQgstFOctr5mkkA-EMEpGmKMh7QbnFHspwS3DIt0iVi0FHP1DEdcxIKlBUYmHqcS~x1dT~bawKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee met May 14 to consider changes to a sealing and expungement bill, focusing on whether defendants who represent themselves should be explicitly allowed to use sealed criminal-history records in their own defense and whether embezzlement should be treated differently from other offenses for sealing timelines.

Committee members said the immediate question is narrow: make explicit in statute that a defendant — including a pro se defendant — may use a sealed criminal-history record in their defense. Committee members also reopened a longer-running debate about whether felony embezzlement should be excluded from the bill or subject to a longer waiting period (10 years) rather than the seven years the committee has used previously.

The committee heard that Marshall Hall had raised concerns about how sealed records could be used outside court, and that Judge Zonay reviewed proposed language and “said from his perspective, it’s fine.” Members also reported that the Department of State’s Attorneys opposed adding new statutory restrictions on how attorneys handle confidential materials, arguing that professional rules of conduct already govern attorney handling of confidential records and protect against improper disclosure to lay witnesses.

Lawmakers discussed practical checks in the proposal. Committee members emphasized that sealing under the bill is petition-driven, not automatic: a court reviews the underlying charge, plea or conviction, supervision time and whether sealing is “in the interest of justice.” Committee members and staff noted this judicial review as a safeguard that can prevent sealing of high‑harm offenses even if those offenses are included in a broader sealing framework.

The embezzlement discussion traced the bill’s history: a 2022 effort to expand automatic sealing and include property crimes led to a veto by the governor; subsequent work pivoted to a broader sealing approach. Some committee members urged staying with a seven‑year waiting period, citing recidivism data used in earlier work, and concern that making an exception for embezzlement could prompt many other carve‑outs and imperil the broader reform. Other members, and at least one speaker with banking experience, urged extending the waiting period to 10 years for embezzlement as a compromise, arguing the financial‑sector harms are different from minor offenses referenced in testimony supporting fair‑chance hiring laws (the committee referenced testimony that cites the Fair Hiring and Banking Act and related testimony from JPMorgan Chase).

Committee members also discussed elapsed time in real cases: speakers said the investigative and court processes plus average sentences (reported to the committee as commonly three to five years for felony embezzlement) mean the effective wait between the underlying conduct and a sealing petition often already exceeds the statutory waiting period. Members asked staff to collect and publish the sentencing and timeline data referenced during the hearing for further review.

No formal committee vote on changing the embezzlement element was taken at the hearing. Committee members asked staff and counsel (several times referencing a staff member by first name) to review drafting choices — including whether explicitly naming pro se defendants in statute would create unintended consequences in other statutes — and to return with a recommended drafting fix. One member said he planned to take a floor vote later the same day to accommodate a member’s schedule; the committee did not record a final disposition on the sealing‑timing question at the hearing.

The committee’s next steps include getting drafting confirmation from legislative counsel on the pro se language and circulating the sentencing/timeframe material noted by staff so members can decide whether to keep the seven‑year standard, adopt a 10‑year compromise for embezzlement, or pursue other amendments.","Members of the Vermont House Judiciary Committee on May 14 debated whether to add language clarifying pro se defendants’ ability to use sealed criminal-history records and whether certain financial crimes such as embezzlement should face a longer wait before eligibility for sealing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee concurs with Senate amendment to H‑41, moves burial‑transport penalty to civil fine and adds criminal desecration provisions

House Judiciary Committee debates pro se access to sealed records and embezzlement waiting period