The Vermont Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant case involving the dismissal of a murder charge against Deven Moffitt. The court's decision, issued on November 13, 2026, has implications for how similar cases may be handled in the future.

The case began when Moffitt was charged with second-degree murder in June 2022 for the death of Jessica Hildenbrandt. The situation escalated when the state sought to delay the trial due to a lack of necessary DNA testing on the victim's remains. The trial court denied this request, leading the state to dismiss the case but with intentions to refile once testing was complete. Moffitt's defense argued that this dismissal should be with prejudice, meaning the state could not refile the charge. The trial court agreed, leading to the state's appeal.

Background

The parties involved in this case are the State of Vermont and Deven Moffitt. Moffitt was charged with second-degree murder after Hildenbrandt's remains were discovered in a shallow grave in 2019. Evidence suggested a troubled relationship between Moffitt and Hildenbrandt, including threatening phone calls made by Moffitt while incarcerated.

The case progressed through the legal system, with multiple trial dates set and postponed due to various reasons, including Moffitt's federal drug charges. The trial was ultimately set for January 2025, but just days before it was scheduled to begin, the state requested a continuance due to missing DNA test results. The trial court denied this request, stating that the state had ample time to conduct the necessary testing. Following this, the state dismissed the charge but indicated it would refile once the DNA results were available.

The Ruling

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had the authority to dismiss the case with prejudice, but it should have considered several factors before doing so. The court stated, "We conclude that the court had authority to impose a sanction up to and including dismissal with prejudice, but that it should have considered the Sauve factors before permanently ending the prosecution." The ruling emphasized the importance of assessing the circumstances surrounding the dismissal and the implications for future cases.

The judges involved in the ruling included Chief Justice Reiber, Justices Eaton, Waples, and Nolan, along with Specially Assigned Justice Tomasi. The court's decision to reverse and remand the case means that the trial court must now reconsider whether to dismiss the case with prejudice or impose a lesser sanction.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future criminal prosecutions in Vermont. It clarifies the conditions under which a court can dismiss a case with prejudice, emphasizing that such a decision should not be taken lightly and must consider various factors, including the seriousness of the offense and the potential impact on the judicial system.

The ruling also reinforces the court's authority to manage its docket and ensure fairness in the legal process. It sets a precedent that could influence how prosecutors approach cases where they seek to dismiss charges, particularly in situations where they may be attempting to circumvent court rulings.

What's Next

The case has been sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. The court will need to evaluate the Sauve factors to determine the appropriate course of action regarding the dismissal of Moffitt's charges. It remains to be seen whether the state will refile the charges or if the court will impose a different sanction.