Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2025 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. Morrillgreen2 sentences1991Plain error occurs only “where our failure to recognize a claim of error would result in a miscarriage of justice or ‘where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.’” State v. Anderkin, 145 Vt 240, 245, 487 A.2d 142, 144 (1984) (quoting State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969))(citations omitted). 1991Plain error occurs only “where our failure to recognize a claim of error would result in a miscarriage of justice or ‘where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.’” State v. Anderkin, 145 Vt 240, 245, 487 A.2d 142, 144 (1984) (quoting State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969))(citations omitted). | 9 | 14 |
State v. Welchgreen2 sentences2007Plain error lies only in the “rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” Id. at 445 , 394 A.2d at 1116 . 2007Plain error lies only in the “rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” Id. at 445 , 394 A.2d at 1116 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Kaspergreen2 sentences1987The prosecutor’s comment may have been inappropriate, but it was not “a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the heart of a defendant’s constitutional rights.” Id. (citing State v. Kasper, 137 Vt. at 190-91 , 404 A.2d at 89 ). 1987The prosecutor’s comment may have been inappropriate, but it was not “a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the heart of a defendant’s constitutional rights.” Id. (citing State v. Kasper, 137 Vt. at 190-91 , 404 A.2d at 89 ). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Carpentergreen2 sentences2008State v. Carpenter, 170 Vt. 371, 374-75 , 749 A.2d 1137, 1139-40 (2000). 2008State v. Carpenter, 170 Vt. 371, 374-75 , 749 A.2d 1137, 1139-40 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pelicangreen2 sentences2008“Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Pelican , 160 Vt. 536, 538 , 632 A.2d 24, 26 (1993) (quotation omitted). ¶ 15. 2008“Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Pelican , 160 Vt. 536, 538 , 632 A.2d 24, 26 (1993) (quotation omitted). ¶ 15. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Anderkingreen2 sentences1991Plain error occurs only “where our failure to recognize a claim of error would result in a miscarriage of justice or ‘where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.’” State v. Anderkin, 145 Vt 240, 245, 487 A.2d 142, 144 (1984) (quoting State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969))(citations omitted). 1985Therefore, this Court will not consider the defendant’s claim on appeal unless “the circumstances indicate plain error has occurred.” State v. Anderkin, 145 Vt. 240, 245 , 487 A.2d 142, 144 (1984); see State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969) (“In order to reach the question attempted to be raised we must first decide whether this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so *431 grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.”). . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nealegreen2 sentences1989State v. Neale, 145 Vt. 423, 430 , 491 A.2d 1025, 1030 (1985); State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969) (“In order to reach the question attempted to be raised we must first decide whether this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.”). 1989State v. Neale, 145 Vt. 423, 430 , 491 A.2d 1025, 1030 (1985); State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969) (“In order to reach the question attempted to be raised we must first decide whether this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Francisgreen2 sentences1989In our recent decision of State v. Francis, 151 Vt. at 303-04, 561 A.2d at 396-97 (1989), we held that a similar jury charge did not mandate reversal. 1989In our recent decision of State v. Francis, 151 Vt. at 303-04, 561 A.2d at 396-97 (1989), we held that a similar jury charge did not mandate reversal. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Atkinsongreen1 sentence1984Such can be found, however, only in exceptional circumstances where our failure to recognize a claim of error would result in a miscarriage of justice, see United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936) ; State v. Welch, supra, 136 Vt. at 445, 394 A.2d at 1116 , or “where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the respondent’s constitutional rights.” State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Townegreen2 sentences1984State v. Towne, 142 Vt. 241, 245 , 453 A.2d 1133, 1134 (1982) ; State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969) (“In order to reach the question attempted to be raised we must first decide whether this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.”) ; V.R.Cr.P. 52(b) (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”). 1984State v. Towne, 142 Vt. 241, 245 , 453 A.2d 1133, 1134 (1982) ; State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511 , 253 A.2d 142, 145 (1969) (“In order to reach the question attempted to be raised we must first decide whether this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the [defendant’s] constitutional rights.”) ; V.R.Cr.P. 52(b) (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Unwingreen1 sentence1982See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McSheffreygreen2 sentences1982There was no closing argu *237 ment made by the prosecutor dealing with the disposition of the defendant’s second sample as in State v. McSheffrey, 131 Vt. 329, 336 , 306 A.2d 702, 706 (1973) (an improper and prejudicial argument about the lack of evidence of results of the independent test threatened the right of the defendant to a fair and impartial tidal). 1982There was no closing argu *237 ment made by the prosecutor dealing with the disposition of the defendant’s second sample as in State v. McSheffrey, 131 Vt. 329, 336 , 306 A.2d 702, 706 (1973) (an improper and prejudicial argument about the lack of evidence of results of the independent test threatened the right of the defendant to a fair and impartial tidal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoodgreen2 sentences1978See State v. Hood, supra, 123 Vt. at 277-78 , 187 A.2d at 502 . *445 For us to reach defendant’s right to counsel claim, we must find that this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights. 1978See State v. Hood, supra, 123 Vt. at 277-78 , 187 A.2d at 502 . *445 For us to reach defendant’s right to counsel claim, we must find that this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights. | 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. Lee
green
2 sentences2011As noted above, “[pjlain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Lee, 2008 VT 128, ¶ 11 , 185 Vt. 110 , 967 A.2d 1161 (quotation omitted). 2011As noted above, “[pjlain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Lee, 2008 VT 128, ¶ 11 , 185 Vt. 110 , 967 A.2d 1161 (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Melissa Robitille
green
1 sentence2025“Cross-examination satisfies the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee if the defendant is allowed the opportunity to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.” State v. Robitille, 2019 VT 36, ¶ 18 , 210 Vt. 202 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Leroux
green
2 sentences2025“Plain error lies only in the rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Leroux, 2008 VT 104, ¶ 12 , 184 Vt. 396 (quotation omitted). 2 The record does not support defendant’s claim of error, for several reasons. 2025“Plain error lies only in the rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Leroux, 2008 VT 104, ¶ 12 , 184 Vt. 396 (quotation omitted). 2 The record does not support defendant’s claim of error, for several reasons. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Brochu
green
2 sentences2025“Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize an error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Brochu, 2008 VT 21, ¶ 71 , 183 Vt. 269 . Defendant was also concerned that the nurse would testify about events that occurred in New York, which defendant posited would amount to inadmissible information regarding other bad acts. 2 Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court committed any error, let alone plain err 2025“Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize an error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Brochu, 2008 VT 21, ¶ 71 , 183 Vt. 269 . Defendant was also concerned that the nurse would testify about events that occurred in New York, which defendant posited would amount to inadmissible information regarding other bad acts. 2 Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court committed any error, let alone plain err | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Riva
green
2 sentences2018Plain error occurs in the extraordinary case "where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant's constitutional rights." State v. Riva , 145 Vt. 15 , 19, 481 A.2d 1060 , 1063 (1984) (quotation omitted). ¶ 37. 2018Plain error occurs in the extraordinary case "where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant's constitutional rights." State v. Riva , 145 Vt. 15 , 19, 481 A.2d 1060 , 1063 (1984) (quotation omitted). ¶ 37. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Longley
green
2 sentences2008“Plain error lies only in the rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Langley, 2007 VT 101, ¶ 24 , 182 Vt. 452 , 939 A.2d 1028 (citation and quotations omitted). 2008“Plain error lies only in the rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Langley, 2007 VT 101, ¶ 24 , 182 Vt. 452 , 939 A.2d 1028 (citation and quotations omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Longley
green
1 sentence2008“Plain error lies only in the rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during trial that was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Langley, 2007 VT 101, ¶ 24 , 182 Vt. 452 , 939 A.2d 1028 (citation and quotations omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Chambers
green
2 sentences1989Id. at 382 , 477 A.2d at 978 . 1989Id. at 382 , 477 A.2d at 978 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Billado
green
1 sentence1987The prosecutor’s comment may have been inappropriate, but it was not “a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the heart of a defendant’s constitutional rights.” Id. (citing State v. Kasper, 137 Vt. at 190-91 , 404 A.2d at 89 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Garvey
green
2 sentences1982There was no mention in the charge to the jury and no prolonged testimony concerning the second sample as in State v. Garvey, 133 Vt. 29 , 329 A.2d 662 (1974) (such testimony and charge together rose to the level of glaring error). 1982There was no mention in the charge to the jury and no prolonged testimony concerning the second sample as in State v. Garvey, 133 Vt. 29 , 329 A.2d 662 (1974) (such testimony and charge together rose to the level of glaring error). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
In Re Lovejoy
green
2 sentences1975Although this Court will not put in error a lower court on an issue not raised below, In re Lovejoy, 131 Vt. 525, 527 , 309 A.2d 926 (1973), we will examine the record on appeal and will reach the question attempted to be raised if the case is one of “those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial [which] strikes at the very heart of the respondent’s constitutional rights.” State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511, 253 A.2d 142 (1969). 1975Although this Court will not put in error a lower court on an issue not raised below, In re Lovejoy, 131 Vt. 525, 527 , 309 A.2d 926 (1973), we will examine the record on appeal and will reach the question attempted to be raised if the case is one of “those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial [which] strikes at the very heart of the respondent’s constitutional rights.” State v. Morrill, 127 Vt. 506, 511, 253 A.2d 142 (1969). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.