Background
In 2019, Harry Williams pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a minor, human trafficking, and resisting arrest. He received a fifteen-to-thirty-year sentence, with all but eight years suspended, followed by probation. One condition barred him from initiating or maintaining contact with females under sixteen unless his probation officer gave advance written approval.
After his July 2025 release, Williams signed a fourteen-day rental agreement to stay in an apartment occupied by T.G. and her six-year-old daughter, L.G. Williams knew L.G. lived there, planned to sleep in her bedroom while she slept with T.G., and was in the residence and private common areas with her. His probation officer had not approved the arrangement. The trial court found a violation, imposed two additional years to serve on the sexual-assault sentence, required treatment, and did not revoke probation.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the evidence supported the finding that Williams maintained prohibited contact with L.G. by intentionally remaining in close physical proximity to her in her apartment building and residence after he knew she was present. That conduct was not merely incidental contact in a public place.
The condition gave Williams adequate notice. Under Vermont precedent, proximity can constitute prohibited contact in a private setting, where the risks to the protected child and to rehabilitation differ from incidental encounters in public. Williams also failed to show that the violation was unintentional or beyond his control; the trial court reasonably found he had access to another place to stay, even if it was undesirable.
Key Takeaways
- A no-contact probation condition can be violated through intentional physical proximity, without conversation, grooming, or time alone with the child.
- The rule against treating incidental public proximity as prohibited contact does not control intentional proximity in a private residence or its private common areas.
- Once the State proves a violation, the probationer must show it was outside the probationer’s control and not willful.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that broadly phrased no-contact conditions may reach a probationer’s intentional continued proximity to protected minors in private residential settings. It also underscores that housing hardship does not excuse a violation when the record supports a finding that alternative housing was available.