Judiciary committee reviews updated draft of H.41 creating "abuse of a dead human body" offense

Legislative counsel Ben Novogradski walked the Judiciary Committee through an updated draft of H.41 that would recast and relocate an offense titled “abuse of a dead human body,” define prohibited sexual conduct against a dead body, and set new penalties.

Novogradski said the bill moves the offense from the homicide chapter into Title 13, chapter 81, subchapter 3 (statutes addressing dead bodies, cemeteries and monuments), and that the draft would appear as 13 V.S.A. § 3761a with the caption “abuse of a dead human body.”

Under the draft described to the committee, a person would be guilty of abuse of a dead human body if they knowingly and without legal authorization intentionally hide, burn, mutilate, disfigure, dismember, desecrate, otherwise conceal or destroy a dead human body. That basic violation would carry a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

An aggravated form of the offense would apply when the actor conceals a dead body to hide a crime or avoid apprehension, prosecutions, or conviction; burns, mutilates, disfigures or dismembers a body to conceal a crime; or commits sexual conduct against a dead human body. The draft increases the aggravated maximum penalty to 15 years and would allow a fine up to $10,000; Novogradski said the aggravated provision would no longer include a mandatory minimum sentence.

The draft includes a specific exclusion: cremated remains would not be covered by the definition of “dead human body.” Novogradski said that exclusion was intended to avoid capturing coroners, medical examiners and funeral‑service personnel performing routine, lawful duties.

On sexual conduct, the committee heard that the draft borrows and adapts definitions from Vermont’s child exploitation statute. Novogradski described prohibited conduct to include specified types of contact or intrusion into any part of a dead body, or touching with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire. He warned the committee that these provisions mirror language used in child‑exploitation law and that the bill adds a third instance of a sexual‑conduct definition in Title 13.

Members discussed whether photography, simulated conduct, or consenting adults’ role in simulation should be included. Novogradski said photography and simulation had been considered but can make the drafting “messy”; he noted possible approaches, including language that covers recording or third‑party involvement when the conduct is intended to arouse sexual desire. Committee members also raised the distinction between theft of items from graves (grave‑robbery style conduct) and sexualized misconduct against a corpse; Novogradski said other statutes can already cover theft of items.

Committee members queried the corresponding fine structure and consistency of fines across the criminal code. Novogradski acknowledged that fines are infrequently imposed and that the committee plans to revisit fine consistency during a larger criminal‑code restructuring in a future biennium.

The committee scheduled the updated draft of H.41 for a committee vote on Tuesday afternoon; no formal vote on the draft was taken at this meeting.

Novogradski said he would circulate an edited version of the draft before the committee takes it up for a vote.