# State v. Morse

> Supreme Court of Vermont · July 25, 2014 · 197 Vt. 495

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800610

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Vermont v. Phillip Morse
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Vermont
- **Decided:** July 25, 2014
- **Citations:** 197 Vt. 495; 106 A.3d 902; 2014 VT 84; 2014 Vt. LEXIS 82; 2014 WL 3700339
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Crawford
- **Judges:** Reiber, Dooley, Skoglund, Robinson, Crawford
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800610

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that issues not raised before trial court are waived on appeal

## Opinion text

Crawford, J.,
¶ 34. dissenting. I agree fully with the majority’s holding that the Vermont Rules of Evidence do not apply to restitution hearings. I dissent only on the issue of evidence of an uninsured loss.
¶ 35. In the course of the restitution hearing, the victim testified that her own car — the subject of the property damage claim — was insured. Because uninsured motorist coverage is mandatory in Vermont, subject to a $150 deductible, the evidence was unmis *508 takable that the victim had insurance coverage available to her that would respond to this loss. 23 V.S.A. § 941(a). Any reluctance she may have had to make use of her own insurance coverage is irrelevant. The restitution statute limits the use of funds held by the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services to losses for which there is no coverage. See 13 V.S.A. § 7043(a)(l)-(2) (stating that restitution may be awarded to victim that has suffered “a material loss,” defined as “uninsured property loss, uninsured out-of-pocket monetary loss, uninsured lost wages, and uninsured medical expenses” (emphases added)). Although defendant failed to pursue this issue either at trial or on appeal, the trial court’s error in ordering restitution in the face of insurance required by statute meets criteria for “plain error” and requires a remand on that issue. See State v. Simmons, 2011 VT 69, ¶ 12 , 190 Vt. 141 , 27 A.3d 1065 (explaining that plain error lies where error is both obvious and results in a miscarriage of justice if this Court does not recognize it).
¶ 36. I am authorized to state that Justice Skoglund joins this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800610. Public record. Not legal advice.