5 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sullivangreen1 sentence2021See Sullivan, 2013 VT 71, ¶ 40 (concluding that suspect’s statements about drinking were voluntary in part because of “her persistent refusal to take either a field sobriety test or an evidentiary test”). ¶ 43. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blouingreen2 sentences2011Indeed, this was precisely our reasoning in State v. Blouin, where we considered the analogous situation of a suspect’s refusal to perform an HGN test, a standard field sobriety test used for determining probable cause to arrest for DUI. 168 Vt. 119 , 716 A.2d 826 (1998). 2011Indeed, this was precisely our reasoning in State v. Blouin, where we considered the analogous situation of a suspect’s refusal to perform an HGN test, a standard field sobriety test used for determining probable cause to arrest for DUI. 168 Vt. 119 , 716 A.2d 826 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Curavoogreen2 sentences2011As we there explained, “inasmuch as defendant’s refusal to perform the HGN test goes to consciousness of guilt, the refusal evidence is admissible.” Id. at 122 , 716 A.2d at 828 (citation omitted); accord State v. Curavoo, 156 Vt. 72, 75 , 587 A.2d 963, 965 (1991). 2011As we there explained, “inasmuch as defendant’s refusal to perform the HGN test goes to consciousness of guilt, the refusal evidence is admissible.” Id. at 122 , 716 A.2d at 828 (citation omitted); accord State v. Curavoo, 156 Vt. 72, 75 , 587 A.2d 963, 965 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Cir. 1998) (Rogala arrested for “disobeying [officer’s] order to return to the car after she had interfered with the field sobriety test that he was conducting”); Reed v. State, 422 S.E.2d 15, 17 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (officer in process of investigating defendant for driving under the influence when defendant walked inside house and disappeared, ignoring orders to stop); Patterson v. State, 381 S.E.2d 754, 755 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989) (after being stopped for speeding, driver exited car and refused order to reenter the car; driver was verbally abusive and stayed in dangerous spot in roadway); State | 1 | 1 |
State v. Littlegreen1 sentence2000Cir. 1998) (Rogala arrested for “disobeying [officer’s] order to return to the car after she had interfered with the field sobriety test that he was conducting”); Reed v. State, 422 S.E.2d 15, 17 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (officer in process of investigating defendant for driving under the influence when defendant walked inside house and disappeared, ignoring orders to stop); Patterson v. State, 381 S.E.2d 754, 755 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989) (after being stopped for speeding, driver exited car and refused order to reenter the car; driver was verbally abusive and stayed in dangerous spot in roadway); State | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Cir. 1998) (Rogala arrested for “disobeying [officer’s] order to return to the car after she had interfered with the field sobriety test that he was conducting”); Reed v. State, 422 S.E.2d 15, 17 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (officer in process of investigating defendant for driving under the influence when defendant walked inside house and disappeared, ignoring orders to stop); Patterson v. State, 381 S.E.2d 754, 755 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989) (after being stopped for speeding, driver exited car and refused order to reenter the car; driver was verbally abusive and stayed in dangerous spot in roadway); State | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lombardgreen2 sentences1988Because we have held previously that it is not, see State v. Lombard, 146 Vt. 411, 417, 505 A.2d 1182, 1185-86 (1985), we do not reach the question of whether Mr. Schmitt was in custody at the time he took the sobriety test. 1988Because we have held previously that it is not, see State v. Lombard, 146 Vt. 411, 417, 505 A.2d 1182, 1185-86 (1985), we do not reach the question of whether Mr. Schmitt was in custody at the time he took the sobriety test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gilles Richard
green
2 sentences2023Sess.), § 32. 3 To the extent defendant argues that the juror’s question, “[w]hy are you obligated to offer a field sobriety test by law,” is suggestive of an error by the court, defendant failed to preserve an 11 75, ¶ 16, 202 Vt. 519 , 150 A.3d 1093 (recognizing that evidence of objective symptoms of intoxication without preliminary breath test or field-sobriety tests can alone support prosecution under DUI statute). 2023Sess.), § 32. 3 To the extent defendant argues that the juror’s question, “[w]hy are you obligated to offer a field sobriety test by law,” is suggestive of an error by the court, defendant failed to preserve an 11 75, ¶ 16, 202 Vt. 519 , 150 A.3d 1093 (recognizing that evidence of objective symptoms of intoxication without preliminary breath test or field-sobriety tests can alone support prosecution under DUI statute). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.