Appeal from woman convicted in infant's death denied by Vt. supreme court
VERMONT (ABC22/FOX44) – Vermont's Supreme Court has denied the appeal of a woman convicted for giving an infant a fatal amount of medicine in 2019.
Stacey Vaillancourt's legal team appealed and argued that her conviction was based on an insufficient amount of evidence. The Vermont Supreme Court denied the appeal, and made the announcement Friday, May 2.
Vaillancourt, a former childcare provider, was taking care of 6-month-old Harper Rose Briar in her at-home daycare when she found her unresponsive. Harper died at the hospital, and an autopsy revealed that she had high concentrations of diphenhydramine, a sedating ingredient in Benadryl and other over-the-counter antihistamines, in her blood.
Vaillancourt was later found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and child cruelty. She was sentenced to 3-10 years in prison back in March 2024.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bogus fifties found at Woodway Walgreens, man arrested
Woodway, Tx (FOX 44) – Counterfeit $50 bills used to buy a prepaid cash card in Woodway were traced back to a Waco man, leading to his arrest. Syngin Jon Chaffee was booked into the McLennan County Jail on forgery charges Wednesday after surveillance photos of the transaction were used to identify him. The original incident occurred April 5 when a man with a beard entered the Walgreens at Estates Drive and Woodway Drive and used four fifty-dollar bills to load $200 onto a prepaid card. An arrest affidavit said it was not initially noticed that the bills were counterfeit until after the transaction was complete and he had left the store. The incident was reported to the Woodway Public Safety Department by Walgreens who also provided the counterfeit bills along with the surveillance video of the transaction. The affidavit stated that after the investigator shared a still photo of the suspect in a county investigator e-mail, he got a tip on a possible ID of the man. He then searched the name on Facebook and was able to find an account and match that photo with those on the site and on a Texas ID belonging to Syngin Chaffee. Man faces animal cruelty charge after kitten thrown on roof The affidavit stated the investigator contact Chaffee who met with him at the police station. The affidavit said he gave a statement about making the transaction, but claimed he did not know the bills were counterfeit. The affidavit stated that of the four bills used in the transaction, one was real and three were bogus. Chaffee was then arrested and transported to the jail where he remained Thursday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Smith & Wesson, blocks Mexico's $10B suit against gunmakers over cartel violence
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson — which still produces guns in Springfield, Massachusetts — had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. 'There are two trials,' she said. 'We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know.' The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Smith & Wesson moved its headquarters and much of its operations from Springfield to Tennessee, but the company retains about 1,000 employees at its plant in Western Massachusetts. Operations that remain in Springfield include its forge, metal working, machining, finishing the assembly of Colt 1911-style handguns and revolver assembly. On Thursday, Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson president and CEO, said in a statement that the court's unanimous decision 'shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit' represented 'a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.' 'This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an affront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,' Smith said in the statement. He called it the latest attack on the firearms industry 'in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-constitutional agenda. 'To all American patriots — you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your constitutional rights at every turn,' Smith said. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. 'This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law,' said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice,' he said. Read the original article on MassLive.
