House Judiciary committee considers H.41 to create felony for abuse of a corpse

The House Judiciary Committee reviewed H.41, a bill that would create a felony offense for the abuse of a corpse, including knowingly transporting, burying, burning, mutilating, disfiguring, dismembering or otherwise destroying a body without legal authorization, legislative counsel Ben Novogratzky told the committee. The proposal would add a new statute, 13 VSA §2312, and an aggravated offense when the conduct is intended to conceal a crime or avoid apprehension, prosecution or conviction.

The bill’s supporters say it fills a prosecutorial gap left by the existing Title 18 public‑health statute on unauthorized removal or burial of human remains. “This bill proposes to create a new felony statute for an individual who abuses a corpse,” Ben Novogratzky, legislative counsel, said, explaining that the measure moves the offense into Title 13 (criminal law) and distinguishes a knowingly committed offense from an intentionally or purposely committed, aggravated offense.

Why it matters: The committee heard detailed statutory language and penalty ranges and heard emotional testimony from a victim’s family member who said the existing law was inadequate for the facts of her case. Pam Martin Harris testified about her mother, Roberta Martin, whose remains were found burned after an assault and homicide; she urged lawmakers to pass H.41 and suggested naming it “Roberta’s Law.” “My mom is Roberta Martin, who was brutally murdered and whose body was set on fire,” Harris said. “I never got to kiss my sweet mama. I never got to say my final goodbye.”

Bill details and penalties: Novogratzky described subsection A of the proposal, which would make the listed conduct a felony punishable under subsection C(1) by up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Subsection B would create an aggravated offense — where the actor intentionally hides or destroys a corpse to conceal a crime or avoid prosecution — carrying a statutory minimum of not less than five years and a maximum of 10 years and a fine of up to $10,000 under subsection C(2). Novogratzky noted statutory minimums are uncommon in Vermont but pointed to the maiming statute (13 VSA §2701) as a comparison.

Relationship to existing law: Committee members discussed Title 18 §5211, an existing statute that addresses unauthorized burial or removal of remains and carries felony penalties (Novogratzky read the Title 18 language aloud). He said the Title 18 provision is set out in the public‑health chapter and “is not really designed to get towards criminal behavior,” which the proposed Title 13 provision would address directly by locating the offense among homicide‑related statutes and by adding a concealment enhancement not present in Title 18.

Victim testimony and prosecutorial context: Pam Martin Harris described the discovery of her mother’s remains and the family’s ongoing trauma. She said forensic evidence showed rape and blunt‑force homicidal trauma and that the perpetrator removed and burned the body. Harris asked the committee to treat the conduct as a felony. Diane Wheeler, deputy state’s attorney in that case, was referenced by Harris and others as explaining prosecutorial charging choices; committee members discussed that prosecutorial discretion can lead to charging different counts depending on available evidence and that the new statute could provide an alternate or additional charge if murder charges fail or do not fit the available proof.

Committee questions and next steps: Members questioned whether morticians, medical examiners or other professionals who legally work with bodies would be captured by the statute; Novogratzky said the key phrase in the proposed draft is “without legal authorization,” and he offered to gather a list of who in Vermont is authorized to handle human remains and to return with more precise drafting language. Committee member Tom Burdett described the legislative timeline and process for revisiting the bill: “It’s a long drawn out process and…we’ll talk about this again,” he said, explaining the bill would return for further committee review, possible language tweaks, and, if advanced, floor consideration in both chambers.

No formal committee vote on H.41 was recorded during the portion of the hearing in this transcript. Committee discussion focused on mental‑state elements (the difference between “knowingly” and “intentionally/purposely”), penalty severity, whether a statutory minimum is appropriate, exemptions or clarifications for legally authorized actors, and obtaining additional information from medical‑examiner and funeral‑service stakeholders to inform drafting.

The committee indicated it will seek additional information and may amend the bill before any formal committee action. Supporters and the victim’s family sought a felony level penalty and urged lawmakers to advance the proposal so that families in similar circumstances would have a statutory remedy beyond the existing Title 18 public‑health provision.