Committee reviews bill to let hate-crime enhancement apply when crime targets property or groups

Daniel Prodzinski, staff from the Office of Legislative Council, explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 19 that a bill before the committee would expand the scope of Vermont—s hate-crime enhancement to cover conduct motivated "in whole or in part by another person's or group of person's actual or perceived membership in a protected category."

Prodzinski said the change does not create a standalone offense but operates as a sentencing enhancement for an underlying crime. Under the draft language he described, if the underlying offense carried a maximum penalty of one year or less, the enhancement could raise the possible sentence to up to two years or a fine of up to $2,000. For offenses carrying more than one year but less than five, the enhancement could raise the penalty to up to five years or a fine not more than $10,000. For crimes with maximum penalties of five years or more, the statute would require the court to consider bias motivation as a factor at sentencing.

Using an unlawful-mischief example, Prodzinski described how an act such as spray-painting a racist symbol that causes less than a statutory dollar threshold in property damage could be charged under the base offense and then receive an enhanced penalty if evidence showed animus. "If there was evidence to support that that property damage was motivated at least in part by racial or religious animus," he said, "the prosecutor can use the hate motivated crime statute to enhance that underlying penalty."

An official from the Attorney General—s Office told the committee the office supports the bill. "We stand behind this bill. We see this bill as an important expansion of the existing protections for...classes that are laid out in 14 55," the prosecutor said, adding the change would let prosecutors "stand up for Vermont's values" in cases where the direct victim is property or a third party.

Committee members raised hypotheticals about protests near a National Guard base and whether speech about policy versus animus toward a protected group could trigger an enhancement. Prodzinski and the AG—s representative repeatedly said the enhancement would depend on the evidentiary record and intent; the draft calls for proof of motivation and a sentencing hearing rather than an automatic penalty.

Prosecutors and legal counsel told the committee the standard for applying the enhancement would be a preponderance of evidence at sentencing, and they emphasized that the amendment would not criminalize expressive conduct on its own but would enhance penalties for criminal acts shown to be bias-motivated.

The draft would also list protected categories and set an effective date of July 1 in the current year, according to the bill text presented to the committee. Committee members asked for more time to review the language and for the defender general to present concerns about free-speech and constitutional limits at a later date; no committee vote occurred during the hearing.

Clarifying provisions discussed during testimony included who counts as the "victim" for purposes of enhancement, evidentiary approaches prosecutors could use (for example, posts or statements), and the enhancement's operation as a sentencing factor rather than a standalone charge.