The Vermont Supreme Court Weights In On Where Unplanned Sex Ends And A Sexual Relationship Begins
In State v. Galanes, 2015 VT 80 (June 12th, 2015), the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the defendant did not violate the terms of his parole by engaging in spontaneous sex with his housekeeper.
Issue: As a condition of his parole, the defendant was required to notify his parole officer if he planned to begin a sexual relationship. The defendant unexpectedly came across his housekeeper folding towels in his bedroom after exiting the shower, and the two proceeded to have sex. Both testified they thought the other was not home, and that the encounter was completely unplanned. The trial court determined that although the sex was unplanned, the defendant should have anticipated a future encounter with the housekeeper and notified his parole officer. The trial court made this determination because the defendant and the housekeeper were close friends and had sexual history. The issue before the Vermont Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in holding the defendant had a “planned sexual relationship” in violation of his parole.
Holding: The Vermont Supreme Court held that the encounter was not planned, and drew a distinction for between anticipating a sexual encounter may occur and planning to begin a sexual relationship. The Court overturned the trial court’s determination that the defendant violated his parole.
Dissent: Given the past sexual history and close emotional connection between the defendant and his housekeeper, Justice Burgess believed the encounter was sufficient to constitute a planned sexual relationship within the meaning of the defendant’s parole.