Judiciary committee hears testimony on H.118 to expand hate-motive enhancements to group-targeted crimes

Montpelier — The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on H.118, a bill that would allow Vermont prosecutors to seek enhanced penalties when an underlying crime is motivated ‘‘in whole or in part’’ by bias against a group of people rather than only a particular, single victim.

Ben Dobrovsky, legislative counsel, introduced the bill and said it would broaden the existing hate-motivation enhancement so it can apply when conduct is aimed at a group’s actual or perceived membership. “What this bill proposes to do is to expand 1 of the bases in which you can prosecute someone for hate crime,” Dobrovsky said.

Supporters, including the attorney general’s office and the state’s Office of Racial Equity, described H.118 as an enhancement to underlying offenses such as unlawful mischief, trespass and vandalism rather than a stand‑alone crime. “This is an enhancement. And it’s really important to remember, this is not an actual crime itself,” said Todd Daylows, assistant attorney general and director of policy and legislative affairs for Attorney General Charity Clark.

Why it matters: Testimony and circulated examples showed incidents of vandalism and symbols placed on public property or private residences that prosecutors currently cannot enhance under the statute because the owner of the damaged property was not a member of the targeted group. Daylows and other witnesses cited spray‑painted racial epithets on public rights‑of‑way in Royalton and other incidents in Brattleboro and Chittenden County as illustrations of where current wording leaves prosecutors without an enhancement even when the act appears hate motivated.

How the bill would work: The proposal leaves the underlying offense and penalty intact and adds a penalty enhancement tied to the hate motivation. As described to the committee, if the underlying crime carries up to one year in jail, the enhancement could raise the exposure to up to two years (and related fines); higher underlying penalties would receive graduated consideration or have motivation treated as a sentencing factor for felonies of five years or more. The bill as presented sets an effective date of July 1.

Concerns and drafting questions: Committee members and witnesses focused on drafting choices that could affect both prosecutorial use and constitutional challenges. Legislative counsel noted that the bill currently borrows language from the statute’s statement of purpose; witnesses from the attorney general’s office and Legislative Council flagged the placement of the word “particular” (as in “group of particular persons”) and suggested moving or removing it to avoid unintentionally narrowing or complicating proof of bias.

Daylows said the word “particular” was inserted in other statutes to reflect case law and to reduce First Amendment exposure, but he acknowledged the committee could consider alternate placements. “To hedge against those potential challenges” is the policy choice before the committee, a Legislative Council attorney said, noting the true‑threat doctrine and other narrow First Amendment exceptions that apply when speech crosses into intimidation or threat.

Prosecutors’ view: Kim McManus of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs said the change “gives us literally options” although the department had not yet fully vetted practical effects and will discuss the draft at its executive committee. McManus emphasized that these prosecutions are fact‑specific and that proving a defendant’s motivation remains the central challenge.

Community and equity perspective: Angela Lazo Jimenez, policy analyst at the Office of Racial Equity, urged the committee to act, citing documented increases in reported hate incidents and describing how vandalism and threats spread fear across communities: “When those kinds of things happen, historically marginalized communities as well as Vermont suddenly start questioning their safety in what they consider home.” She told lawmakers the office supports H.118 because it recognizes group impact as well as individual harm.

Scope and other questions: Committee members queried whether the change would apply only to property and lower‑level crimes or also factor into sentencing for violent felonies. Witnesses explained that for serious felonies (penalties above five years) the bill treats bias as a sentencing factor rather than imposing a fixed enhancement; prosecutors still must plead and prove the bias enhancement to have it considered at sentencing.

Other topics raised included whether to add categories such as armed‑forces service (already previously added to Vermont law), law‑enforcement officers, legislators or other public officials to the list of protected classes. Witnesses and members cautioned that adding public officials or broad occupational categories raises policy and constitutional questions; proponents urged focusing on historically marginalized groups and tools that protect those communities.

Next steps: Committee members said they will seek further input, including from the Defender General’s Office, law enforcement and civil‑liberties groups, and consider technical edits to the bill’s language to balance prosecutorial utility and constitutional defensibility. No committee vote or formal amendment was recorded during the hearing.

Ending: The testimony provided the committee with factual examples and competing drafting concerns: supporters described real incidents that the current statute cannot enhance, while prosecutors and counsel urged careful wording to ensure the enhancement is both usable and legally sustainable. The committee scheduled additional testimony and follow‑up as it continues to evaluate H.118.