An act relating to a victim’s right to be heard at an appeal or postconviction remedy hearing
H.331 would expand Vermont’s victim-notification and participation provisions for cases involving a “listed crime” when a defendant appeals or seeks postconviction relief. Under current law, the prosecutor’s office must notify the victim about the appeal or postconviction proceeding, explain its significance, and provide notice of any hearing and decision. This bill adds a new requirement that, at the hearing, the court must ask whether the victim is present and, if so, whether the victim wants to be heard about the matter before the court.
If the victim is not present, the court must ask whether the victim has already expressed views orally or in writing and must take those views into consideration. The bill directs courts to do this in accordance with court rules and applies only to hearings connected to convictions for listed crimes. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
The bill amends 13 V.S.A. § 5315, Vermont’s statute governing information concerning appeal and postconviction remedies, by adding an explicit victim-right-to-be-heard component at appeal or postconviction remedy hearings. It would not change the underlying appellate or postconviction standards, but it would require courts to solicit and consider victim input in qualifying cases, and it would formalize a procedural role for victims in these proceedings. Prosecutors would continue to have notice obligations, while courts would gain an affirmative duty to inquire about victim participation and consider victim statements.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed in a supportive, victim-centered way rather than as a controversial procedural overhaul. Its purpose is to strengthen victims’ ability to participate in post-judgment proceedings affecting a defendant’s conviction, which suggests a generally favorable policy posture toward victim rights. No recorded opposition, amendments, or divided votes are provided in the materials.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between victim participation and the defendant’s postconviction process. Supporters are likely to view the bill as giving victims a meaningful voice and ensuring their views are heard before the court rules on appeal-related matters. Critics could question whether requiring courts to solicit and consider victim statements could complicate or prolong proceedings, or whether it risks shifting focus away from the legal issues in an appeal or postconviction remedy. The bill also leaves implementation to court rules, which may raise questions about how victim input would be handled in practice.