Updated at 4:54 p.m.
The Vermont Supreme Court has upheld the murder and attempted murder convictions for a Burlington man sentenced to at least 27 years in prison for killing his wife and seriously injuring her mother with a meat cleaver.
A jury convicted Aita Gurung following a trial in November 2022 of first-degree murder in the death of his 32-year-old wife, Yogeswari Khadka, at their home in Burlington on Oct. 12, 2017. In addition, the jury also found Gurung guilty of attempted second-degree murder for seriously injuring his mother-in-law, Tulasa Rimal, in the same attack.
Gurung’s attorneys appealed the convictions to the Vermont Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case in June.
His lawyers raised several arguments to support their contentions that the convictions should be thrown out, from claiming problems with the jury selection process to disputing whether the Vermont Attorney General’s Office should have been able to refile the charges against their client after they were dismissed by the Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s Office.
“Defendant finally argues that the cumulative impact of all the alleged errors amounts to a denial of due process and a fair trial,” Justice Nancy Waples wrote in the 37-page unanimous ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court released Friday.
“Because we have concluded there are no prejudicial errors presented, there is no basis for such a conclusion,” Waples added. “We thus affirm defendant’s convictions.”
The case has been working its way through the legal system for several years, as issues raised about Gurung’s mental health at the time of the attack, and leading up to it, were examined and litigated.
In 2019, Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George dismissed the charges against Gurung, as well as two other defendants in high-profile cases.
George contended that she could not rebut insanity defenses in those cases based on expert opinions. Gov. Phil Scott called on then-Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan to review those cases. Donovan opted to refile charges in each of them.
In the ruling Friday, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled the Vermont Attorney General’s Office did have the authority to refile the charges.
Gurung’s trial largely dealt with the defense contention that he was insane at the time of the attack on his wife and mother. The prosecution challenged that assertion, arguing it was a case of domestic violence and Gurung was fueled by anger after his wife would not get him a beer.
Gurung was later sentenced by Judge John Pacht to 35 years to life, with 27 years to serve and the remainder suspended on probation.
Gurung’s defense attorneys in the appeal raised issues with the jury instructions that they claimed confused jurors about the consequences of a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict.
Nine of the 12 jurors signed and submitted a letter to the court after the verdict.
“On behalf of myself and the members of the jury named below, I write to advocate strongly for continued hospitalization of Mr. Gurung in a secure psychiatric care facility rather than imprisonment in a correctional facility due to the severity of his mental illness,” one of the jurors wrote in the letter on behalf of the others.
Waples wrote in Friday’s high court opinion that the letter did not reflect jury confusion.
“Instead, it reflects the jurors’ concern over the carceral consequences of a guilty verdict,” Waples wrote. “Moreover, the letter opens by stating: ‘it could not be proven that [defendant] met the test of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence as presented in this case.’”
Gurung’s attorneys had also contended in their appeal that there were problems during the trial with the court’s Nepali interpreter who translated the proceedings as they were happening to Gurung, who is Bhutanese. Gurung wore headphones throughout the trial to hear the interpreter’s voice. The appeal alleged that the interpreter did not complete sentences and at times used English words for legal terms, such as “defense” and “testimony.”
And, according to the appeal, when Pacht, the trial court judge, heard concerns raised by Gurung’s attorney during the trial, the judge was “hostile” and “dismissive.”
The Vermont Supreme Court ruling Friday stated that the judge acted within his bounds.
“In light of the arguments presented to the trial court,” Waples wrote, “we conclude that the court made a reasonable inquiry into the quality of the interpretation and took reasonable steps to ensure that the interpreters were providing competent interpretation.”
Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark said in a statement Friday she was pleased with the court’s ruling affirming the convictions.
“This case has always been about seeking justice for the tragic acts of domestic violence committed against Yogeswari Khadka and Tulasa Rimal — two brave women whose strength and resilience continue to leave a lasting impact,” Clark said in the statement.
Vermont Defender General Matthew Valerio, whose office is representing Gurung, could not be reached Friday for comment.
