state constitutional claim in Vermont

2016Because the Bailey test balances the culpability of the government’s actions and the prejudice to a defendant, we adopt it as the state constitutional standard. 162 Vt. at 310 , 648 A.2d at 643 . ¶ 23.

2016Because the Bailey test balances the culpability of the government’s actions and the prejudice to a defendant, we adopt it as the state constitutional standard. 162 Vt. at 310 , 648 A.2d at 643 . ¶ 23.

2010Although defendant cited the Vermont Constitution in his pleadings to the trial court and his original brief on appeal, he did not provide any “substantive analysis of the Vermont Constitution, nor d[id] he set forth any rationale as to how our analysis of this constitutional claim should differ under the Vermont Constitution in comparison with the federal constitution.” State v. Raymond, 148 Vt. 617 , 619 n.1, 538 A.2d 164 , 165 n.1 (1987); see State v. Chapman, 643 A.2d 1213, 1219 (Conn. 1994) (concluding that the defendant’s state constitutional claim was not adequately raised where the def

2010Although defendant cited the Vermont Constitution in his pleadings to the trial court and his original brief on appeal, he did not provide any “substantive analysis of the Vermont Constitution, nor d[id] he set forth any rationale as to how our analysis of this constitutional claim should differ under the Vermont Constitution in comparison with the federal constitution.” State v. Raymond, 148 Vt. 617 , 619 n.1, 538 A.2d 164 , 165 n.1 (1987); see State v. Chapman, 643 A.2d 1213, 1219 (Conn. 1994) (concluding that the defendant’s state constitutional claim was not adequately raised where the def

2010Although defendant cited the Vermont Constitution in his pleadings to the trial court and his original brief on appeal, he did not provide any "substantive analysis of the Vermont Constitution, nor d[id] he set forth any rationale as to how our analysis of this constitutional claim should differ under the Vermont Constitution in comparison with the federal constitution." State v. Raymond, 148 Vt. 617 , 619 n. 1, 538 A.2d 164 , 165 n. 1 (1987); see State v. Chapman, 229 Conn. 529 , 643 A.2d 1213, 1219 (1994) (concluding that the defendant's state constitutional claim was not adequately raised w

2010Although defendant cited the Vermont Constitution in his pleadings to the trial court and his original brief on appeal, he did not provide any “substantive analysis of the Vermont Constitution, nor d[id] he set forth any rationale as to how our analysis of this constitutional claim should differ under the Vermont Constitution in comparison with the federal constitution.” State v. Raymond, 148 Vt. 617 , 619 n.1, 538 A.2d 164 , 165 n.1 (1987); see State v. Chapman, 643 A.2d 1213, 1219 (Conn. 1994) (concluding that the defendant’s state constitutional claim was not adequately raised where the def

1991In light of our disposition on the state constitutional claim, we advance no view on the equal protection argument. [3] The word is spelled "comformably" in the Constitution; we presume "conformably" was intended. [4] The court in Pucci went on to state that, under Illinois law, "where a statute of repose replaces a statute of limitations, a plaintiff whose cause of action would not have been barred under the limitations statute has from the effective date of the amendment until the expiration of the repose period to file his lawsuit." 711 F.Supp. at 924 -25 (citing Costello v. Unarco Indus.,

1991In light of our disposition on the state constitutional claim, we advance no view on the equal protection argument. [3] The word is spelled "comformably" in the Constitution; we presume "conformably" was intended. [4] The court in Pucci went on to state that, under Illinois law, "where a statute of repose replaces a statute of limitations, a plaintiff whose cause of action would not have been barred under the limitations statute has from the effective date of the amendment until the expiration of the repose period to file his lawsuit." 711 F.Supp. at 924 -25 (citing Costello v. Unarco Indus.,

1988We note, however, that a similar claim was rejected in State v. Brean, 136 Vt. 147, 151 , 385 A.2d 1085, 1088 (1978).

1988We note, however, that a similar claim was rejected in State v. Brean, 136 Vt. 147, 151 , 385 A.2d 1085, 1088 (1978).

1985Even though defense counsel expressly waived objection, it was plain error, V.R.Cr.P. 52(b), for the court to overlook the state constitutional requirement of a unanimous verdict on an essential element simply because the parties were “thinking in terms of blocks.” The error was obvious and struck “at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Turner, 145 Vt. 399, 403 , 491 A.2d 338, 340-41 (1985).

1985Even though defense counsel expressly waived objection, it was plain error, V.R.Cr.P. 52(b), for the court to overlook the state constitutional requirement of a unanimous verdict on an essential element simply because the parties were “thinking in terms of blocks.” The error was obvious and struck “at the very heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Turner, 145 Vt. 399, 403 , 491 A.2d 338, 340-41 (1985).