Defender General urges removing mandatory PSI for deferred sentences, citing delays and case resolvability

Matt Valerio, the defender general, told the House Judiciary Committee on April 2 that S.181, the deferred-sentence bill, "eliminates the absolute requirement of a pre sentence investigation." He said the bill would restore the prior practice in most cases while preserving judicial discretion to order a PSI when the court deems it necessary.

Valerio framed the change as a practical fix for cases in which the state has difficulty proving its case or where witnesses are unavailable. "One of the ways it comes up is in cases where the state has a lot of difficulty proving its case," he said, describing scenarios in which a complaining witness has recanted or cannot be located. He argued that requiring a PSI in those moments often delays plea resolutions and can cause defendants to withdraw pleas once a PSI is completed.

The defender general gave a concrete example to show how the current requirement can impede case resolution. Describing a Rutland matter resolved without a PSI, Valerio explained the use of an Alford plea — a defendant pleading without admitting wrongdoing — as a mechanism to avoid a risky, lengthy trial and to secure an expungement opportunity for the defendant. "We can do a no contest plea to an what's called an Alford plea," he said. "I'm not admitting any... but we can do a no contest plea ... I'm not contesting that the state might be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt." He said such deals sometimes cannot survive the delay introduced by a later PSI.

Committee members pressed Valerio on why PSIs take so long. He attributed delays to the PSI process itself being "pretty involved" and to staffing constraints, which another participant illustrated by saying a recent PSI had taken three months to complete. A committee member urged that, if delay is the concern, the committee should consider addressing the root causes of PSI backlog rather than removing the statutory requirement.

Valerio said the bill does not strip victims of participation rights. "They still have the same right to comment on the plea agreement, as they would in any case," he said, and added that the change mainly removes the requirement for victims to testify as part of a PSI and preserves the court's ability to order one when needed.

Valerio also said he supports an amendment circulated by Judge Sone clarifying that courts retain discretion to order PSIs: "It doesn't change existing law [as to judicial power]; the court can always order a PSI whenever the judge wants to do it," he said. He characterized S.181 as a return toward prior practice for most cases while explicitly excluding "listed crimes" under current law.

The committee did not vote on the bill at the hearing. The chair scheduled committee discussion and a possible vote for the next session; Valerio's testimony will be part of the record the committee considers as it weighs the amendment and the bill's operational effects.

Next steps: The committee listed S.181 for discussion and possible vote at a subsequent meeting; if the committee advances an amended version, it would return to the senate.