Vermont: Self Defense or Did Lady Die of an OD

VERGENNES — An attorney representing the family of Yemalla Sprauve,
the woman killed while allegedly trying to rob a Vergennes convenience store in September,
...Sprauve’s death has prompted prosecutors to revisit language that outlines when the
use of deadly force is justified.

Sprauve, 34, of Vergennes, died Sept. 28 of cardiac arrhythmia — an irregular heartbeat
— while a male clerk at the Champlain Farms store on Main Street held her down and
compressed her chest, according to the Vermont Medical Examiner’s Office and police
reports. ...Sprauve was also “acutely intoxicated with cocaine” at the time, her death
certificate states. ...State’s Attorney David Fenster, who said Thursday that he intends
to assess, over the upcoming weeks, whether the clerk acted in self-defense when he
killed Sprauve. The report includes video footage of the attempted robbery and subsequent
struggle, police said.

Sprauve had wielded a knife and masked her face during the early morning robbery
attempt, police said. She was unresponsive when authorities arrived, and was later
pronounced dead at Porter Medical Center in Middlebury, police said.

Looking at the description above, I'm confused as to how "use of deadly force" even enters into the equation. The woman--high on cocaine and wielding a knife--was subdued and restrained by the clerk, ...not shot, choked, stabbed or otherwise subject to the normal definition of "deadly force." That she died of her own vulnerability to cardiac arrest due to drugs, and during the course of her own violent felony, make this article nonsensical.
 
I know; I share your confusion about the 'real issues"

I posted it here because I think it is going to make the lawmakers look at the laws on the books... and we have learned to dread that here in VT
 
“Force has to be proportional,” said Michele Martinez Campbell, a professor at Vermont Law School. “You have to have a reasonable belief that whatever is happening is a threat of immediate physical harm to you or your family.”
Click to expand...
So, Vermont is still practicing English common law regarding disparity of force.
 
Sparks1957 said:
Vermont has no castle doctrine laws, since it is a constitutional carry state. The law around the use of deadly force is a bit vague, and the courts are quite free to interpret it.
Click to expand...
Constitutional carry has NOTHING to do with castle doctrine. Castle doctrine is the principle that a person is allowed to defend his home in whatever way he/she deems appropriate. Whether or not VT requires a permit to carry a firearm outside of the home has nothing to do with whether or not VT has or does not have castle doctrine in its state statutes.

And a convenience store clerk wrestling with a store robber also has nothing do do with castle doctrine, because a commercial enterprise is not a private home.

Lastly, as has already been pointed out, the circumstances as reported do not indicate that the clerk even used deadly force. The robber did -- she was armed with a deadly weapon (unless VT doesn't consider a knife to be a deadly weapon), but the clerk didn't. He just went mano a mano, so unless he's a multi-degree black belt he was using force, but not deadly force.
 
Constitutional carry has NOTHING to do with castle doctrine.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right about that, of course. I probably shouldn't post anything without first reading it to see if it makes sense. :o

My point was, however, that VT is likely to be reviewing its laws around the use of force in situations like this, and since we don't have a castle doctrine here, it could lead to unpleasant changes.
 
Are you certain that you don't have a castle doctrine? That would surprise me very much.

[edit to add]
13 V.S.A. § 2305. Justifiable homicide

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)
Click to expand...

That's a start. Not strictly a "castle doctrine" law, but fairly wide in scope. I'd say #2 fits the incident pretty well. The robber had a knife -- a deadly weapon. The clerk "suppressed" the robber.
 
Last edited:
^ There's no castle in that law...

I thought it was interesting "Drunken Charlie" the poster boy for people who oppose Castle Doctrine and keep saying "It doesn't give you the right to slaughter the hapless drunk who wanders in to your home and falls asleep on your couch !" made appearances in Vermont year before last:

In 2010, Vermont State Police responded to three similar incidents, in which homeowners in Bennington, St. Albans and Tunbridge found drunk strangers asleep on their couches. In each case, police arrested the trespasser.
Click to expand...
 
mistress, servant, guardian, or ward
Click to expand...
Almost makes life in Vermont sound like a Boris Vallejo painting.

Nonetheless, that statute looks fairly similar to other states' castle doctrines, with the exception of immunity from civil suits arising from justified shoots. Is there any relevant case law clarifying or muddying the idea of a castle doctrine?
 
Travesty.

I wish the media and the police cared as much about law-abiding working citizens as they seem to do about robbing crack who-ers and their ilk.

Society is better off without her.

I wonder how many others in her "family" will eventually meet the same fate.
 
OK. Bad title for this thread. It has absolutely nothing to do with any purported castle doctrine.

Given the details in the article referenced by the OP, I can't decide if this is a case of justified self defense or did the perp simply OD?

I'm leaning towards an OD. If I'm correct, the State spending this kind of money to decide if this was a homicide is simply ludicrous.

Off to correct the title....
 
Vermont is listed as one of the "States with weak or no specific Castle Law"

I think these Defense of Habitation laws fall along a spectrum and have different components, I'm not sure at which point they cease to be a Castle Law and are merely a lawful use of force / self defense / justifiable homocide. But it seems to me that a minimum component in Castle Law is that an intruder is making (or has made) forcible entry.

I don't see anything like that in Vermont law.

I could be wrong...

The best Castle Doctrines are the ones that grant presumption of a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm by the very fact that the invader is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered (like Oklahoma's law).
 
Last edited:
Not even sure the cocaine played a part in the actual cause of death

Didn't the coroner determine cause of death?

She died of cardiac arrhythmia. There is mention that it occured while her chest was being compressed but the story doesn't say the arrhrythmia was brought about by or even aggravated by compressing her chest, and it does not say what the role of cocaine was on the arrhythmia either.


Maybe instead of Addison County State’s Attorney David Fenster determining if the clerk acted in self defense when he "killied" Sprauve, he should determine if the clerk even killed her.
 
Off to correct the title...
Click to expand...

Thanks, Al. I also edited my original post.

It's interesting that the press is using this particular case as an excuse to bring up the use of deadly force...

I am learning a lot from all your posts.
 
Where is this list, please?
Click to expand...

The best my google fu could do this morning is Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine


States with weak or no specific Castle LawThese states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.

Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
South Dakota "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
Iowa ([44])
Nebraska
New Mexico
Virginia
Vermont
District of Columbia
Click to expand...
 
About cocaine

I've recently read a little about cocaine. Here's how it pertains to the situation.

Cocaine causes blood vessels to clamp down and our heart rate to go up. The net effect is high blood pressure. As for which blood vessels - the most dangerous part about it is that it will constrict the coronary arteries which feed the heart. So now you have a heart that's beating fast and you've cut your supply line to it. That by itself could produce a heart attack. In fact from what I understand if you ever hear of a young person with a heart attack cocaine should be included in the suspicion somewhere.

And that's all before any activity happens. So add all the excitement on there and the heart is even more starved for oxygen. If a part of the right side of the heart dies from the heart attack there's high likelihood that you've messed with the conduction system - the circuitry that times the heart rhythm. I think ventricular fibrillation may be the most lethal arrhythmia to die from after a heart attack - not sure.

Could the man pinning her down have caused an arrhythmia by himself? This is an opinion but mine is leaning towards no. During CPR / chest compressions it is common to find that the ribs were broken - and they'd probably have to be in order to manually squeeze the heart enough to make it pump from the outside. It would take a pretty strong touch to mess with the conduction system from the outside. So it would help us figure it out to know if her ribs were broken. The other thing is that they did not say she died from being unable to breathe. So if the man pinning her down didn't do that hard enough to stop her rib cage from moving while she inhaled / exhaled , I feel it's less likely that he was able to push directly on her heart in order to mess with the conduction and cause an arrhythmia.

You only get one shot at life.

I didn't read the article so I don't know the family's stance. This is just hearsay but I was warned that a defender's action could be the most justified in the world but then relatives who hadn't been in contact with the deceased may come from all over - suing and swearing fierce loyalty. Or sometimes a family may sue just as an expression of grief because death isn't a good thing. Just something to take note of.

God bless.
 
IMO, this is not a case of "self defense"....

The clerk did not (apparently) use "deadly force", or force that would normally be considered to be deadly force by a reasonable person.

"Use of force" is not the same as "deadly force". Many statutes make clear distinctions. New York law specifies "physical force" and then makes clear distinction between "physical force" and subsets, or "degrees" of physical force, including the specific subset "deadly physical force". Obviously this is not New York but the same legal standard exists in some form or another in most places.

So, IMO, this is not a case of the clerk using "deadly physical force". The clerk used reasonable physical force to prevent a robbery. The perpetrator placed themselves in a condition and situation where a normal, healthy person would have survived with little, probably no, injury but a situation in which their self-induced condition led to death.

This is no more a "Self defense" incident than when a drunk runs a red light, gets T-boned by someone with the green and ends up dead. Self-induced fatality at someone elses hands.

Suicide by store clerk.
 
I agree. The article made some assumptions (and it seems that the attorney did too). The attorney is concerned with whether or not he "killed her" in self defense.

If the coroner is correct he did not kill her. She died.
 
Last edited:
wielding a knife
Click to expand...

She showed deadly intent.

And virginia does not have a 'castle law' but we have a very long and strong set of common (case) law that is almost as good.

No duty to retreat in any place you are legally allowed to be (including public places).
'Reasonable man' fear of death or grave injury.

A well defined set of rulings defining excusable and justifiable homicide.
The state legislature has turned down attempts to pass a statutory castle law since it would open the door for all sorts of mischief with the existing case law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top