Senate Judiciary hears bill to make abuse of a dead body a felony after Enosburg killing

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 28 examined H.41, a bill to create a felony for knowingly burning, mutilating, disfiguring, dismembering or otherwise destroying the dead body of a person, after testimony from family members of a murder victim and several health and civil‑liberties organizations.

The bill, introduced on the committee floor as a response to the July killing and post‑mortem abuse of Roberta Martin in Enosburg, would add a new offense in Title 13, §3761a and increase penalties in specified circumstances. "This is an incredibly emotional topic for me," said Representative Tom Burdick, the bill sponsor, before turning the committee over to a victim family member to describe the case that prompted the legislation.

Pam Martin Harris, the victim's daughter, delivered graphic testimony about her mother's death and the handling of her remains. "My mom was brutally murdered. Her body was set on fire," Harris said. She described learning forensic details, the discovery of remains, and the family's loss of the opportunity for a final goodbye. Harris asked that the committee consider naming H.41 "Roberta's Law" and urged lawmakers to classify the conduct as a felony rather than a misdemeanor.

Committee counsel and bill summaries presented the statute's structure: subsection (a) would bar knowingly, and without legal authorization, intentionally burning, mutilating, disfiguring, dismembering or destroying a dead human body; subsection (b) would create an enhanced offense where the act was done to conceal a crime or avoid prosecution. The draft sets a penalty in one subdivision of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine of up to $5,000; an enhanced subdivision carries up to 15 years or a fine up to $10,000. The bill also proposes moving certain unauthorized removal or transport provisions in Title 18 into the new statute and converting a current criminal penalty for unauthorized removal into a civil penalty. The bill's stated effective date in the draft is July 1 (date shown in committee materials).

Multiple witnesses supported giving harsher penalties for the kind of conduct described by Harris, saying the crimes were extraordinary. At the same time, several health and reproductive‑rights organizations urged the committee to refine the language to avoid unintended consequences. Jessica Bartquist, vice president of public affairs for the Planned Parenthood Vermont Action Fund, warned that similar laws elsewhere have been used to investigate or charge people after pregnancy loss. "Creating a felony law around corpse abuse does open a door for those who are opposed to abortion to criminalize pregnancy outcomes," Bartquist said, and she cited national cases where miscarriage or pregnancy complications prompted criminal inquiry.

The Vermont Medical Society and the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems echoed concerns that the bill, as written, could have chilling effects on care or create ambiguity for use of cadavers in education. "We are concerned with unintended consequences," said Jessa Barnard, executive director of the Vermont Medical Society. Bevin Green of the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems asked the committee to make explicit that legally authorized uses of cadavers for education and research would not be captured by the statute.

Committee members and counsel replied that the bill's language was revised in House committee deliberations to use "dead body of a person" rather than older wording, and that the draft includes a knowingly/without‑legal‑authorization standard intended to exclude conduct undertaken under a belief of authorization (for example, licensed cremation or permitted burial). Counsel said related case law and a recent state reproductive‑rights amendment informed changes made in the House.

No votes were taken at the hearing. Committee members asked bill drafters and interested parties to work on clarifying language that would address witnesses' concerns and return revised text to the committee. "If you want to bring your heads together and propose any sort of language that can completely remedy your concerns, then we can bring that back to the committee and discuss further," a committee member said.

Next steps described in the hearing: advocates and agency representatives will review the draft, propose clarifying language about exceptions and legal authorization (including education and medical uses), and the committee will reconvene for further review. The committee did not take final action on H.41.

Votes at a glance: none — the committee held a public hearing and requested revised language and additional review before any vote.