The Vermont Supreme Court has dismissed the State's appeal in the case of State v. Kylie Dodds, ruling that the appeal was filed too late. This decision affects how the state can challenge suppression orders in criminal cases, particularly those involving driving under the influence (DUI) charges.

The court ruled that the State failed to meet the required seven-business-day deadline to appeal a lower court's decision to suppress evidence against Dodds. This ruling is significant because it highlights the strict timelines that the state must adhere to when appealing suppression orders in criminal cases.

Background

Kylie Dodds faced charges for driving under the influence of alcohol, her third offense, and for driving with a suspended license. On December 18, 2025, the criminal division of the Superior Court granted Dodds' motion to suppress various pieces of evidence, including her statements made while in custody, results of breath tests, and her blood-test refusal.

The next day, the State sought an extension of the appeal deadline, claiming it needed more time to file a motion to reconsider the suppression order. The criminal division granted this request, extending the State's deadline by thirty days. However, the State did not file its appeal within the required seven-business-day period, which led to the current dispute.

The Ruling

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the State's appeal was untimely. The court emphasized that the State must file its motion for permission to appeal a suppression order within seven business days, a requirement that cannot be extended under the rules governing appeals. Justice Nolan stated, "The appeal must be taken 'within seven business days after the decision.'" This ruling was based on the interpretation of both statutory law and procedural rules that govern criminal appeals in Vermont.

The court noted that the State's ability to appeal is not a common-law right but is instead grounded in specific statutory provisions. The court explained that the State must adhere to the strict timeline set forth in 13 V.S.A. § 7403, which does not allow for extensions of the appeal period for interlocutory appeals, such as this one involving a suppression order.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future criminal cases in Vermont. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines when the State seeks to appeal decisions made in lower courts. The court's decision clarifies that extensions available for appeals as of right do not apply to interlocutory appeals, such as those involving suppression orders.

As a result, the ruling may affect how the State approaches future cases involving similar charges. Prosecutors must ensure that they file appeals promptly to avoid jurisdictional issues that could prevent them from contesting critical decisions made during criminal proceedings.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the State plans to appeal this ruling or if there are any related cases pending. However, the dismissal of this appeal emphasizes the need for the State to comply with established timelines in future cases.