full-blown evidentiary hearing in Vermont

2025It appropriately exercised its authority under Vermont Rule of Evidence 611(a) to “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence” to make the “presentation orderly and effective,” “avoid needless consumption of time,” and to “protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” It acted consistently with the statutory goal of abuse-prevention proceedings—“to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence”—which “is accomplished in part by providing inexpensive and uncomplicated proceedings . . . without the need for couns

2023The RFA statute was designed to facilitate “uncomplicated proceedings that allow an abused family member to obtain immediate relief without the need for counsel, advance pleadings, or a full-blown evidentiary hearing.” Rapp v. Dimino, 162 Vt. 1, 4 , 643 A.2d 835, 837 (1993).

2023See Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 390 (1990) (explaining that Vermont Rule of Evidence 611 provides court with discretion to control mode and order of presenting evidence and “to set reasonable limits on the consumption of time” in providing testimony); Rapp v. Dimino, 162 Vt. 1, 4 (1993) (explaining that goal of RFA statute is “to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence,” and “[t]his goal is accomplished in part by providing inexpensive and uncomplicated proceedings . . . without the need for counsel, advance pleadings, or a full-blown evidentiary hearing”).