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.
11 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2014 0 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. Dunbargreen2 sentences1991See United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir.) (time does not become a material element of the offense merely because an alibi defense is presented), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 837 (1983); State v. Jackson, 221 Or. 315, 325 , 351 P.2d 439, 444 (1960) (defendant in a criminal proceeding cannot make time a material element by a defense of alibi); cf. Dunbar, 152 Vt. at 403-04 , 566 A.2d at 972-73 (State not barred from amending its information, changing the time of offense from on or about a specific date to “during the summer of 1985,” even though the amendment erased defendant’s alibi def 1991See United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir.) (time does not become a material element of the offense merely because an alibi defense is presented), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 837 (1983); State v. Jackson, 221 Or. 315, 325 , 351 P.2d 439, 444 (1960) (defendant in a criminal proceeding cannot make time a material element by a defense of alibi); cf. Dunbar, 152 Vt. at 403-04 , 566 A.2d at 972-73 (State not barred from amending its information, changing the time of offense from on or about a specific date to “during the summer of 1985,” even though the amendment erased defendant’s alibi def | 2 | 4 |
State v. Infantegreen1 sentence2014See State v. Infante, 157 Vt. 109, 111-12 (1991) (reaffirming the rule that time is generally not considered an element of an offense, and the jury need not be instructed to find that the offense occurred on a specific date, unless defendant asserts a “defense that makes time critical” such as an alibi defense). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomesgreen2 sentences1998See Gomes, 162 Vt. at 322 , 648 A.2d at 399 . 1998See Gomes, 162 Vt. at 322 , 648 A.2d at 399 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Siemsgreen2 sentences1991See State v. Siems, 535 S.W.2d 261, 266 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976) (“[W]hen an alibi defense is interposed, time may be of decisive importance even though not of the essence of the offense.”). 1991See State v. Coffelt, 33 Wash. 2d 106, 109 , 204 P.2d 521, 523 (1949) (en banc) (“[W]hen the complaining witness has fixed the exact time when the act charged was committed, and the defense is an alibi, the commission of the crime on the exact date so fixed is the controlling issue, and the jury should be instructed that they must find the act to have been committed at that time.”); see also Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 266 (“When a specific date is presented as the date of the alleged crime, an instruction covering a broad period of time may not be given which would nullify an alibi defense . . . .”) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Albert \Sonny\" Kinggreen1 sentence1991See United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir.) (time does not become a material element of the offense merely because an alibi defense is presented), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 837 (1983); State v. Jackson, 221 Or. 315, 325 , 351 P.2d 439, 444 (1960) (defendant in a criminal proceeding cannot make time a material element by a defense of alibi); cf. Dunbar, 152 Vt. at 403-04 , 566 A.2d at 972-73 (State not barred from amending its information, changing the time of offense from on or about a specific date to “during the summer of 1985,” even though the amendment erased defendant’s alibi def | 1 | 1 |
V. J. S. v. Illinoisgreen1 sentence1991See United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir.) (time does not become a material element of the offense merely because an alibi defense is presented), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 837 (1983); State v. Jackson, 221 Or. 315, 325 , 351 P.2d 439, 444 (1960) (defendant in a criminal proceeding cannot make time a material element by a defense of alibi); cf. Dunbar, 152 Vt. at 403-04 , 566 A.2d at 972-73 (State not barred from amending its information, changing the time of offense from on or about a specific date to “during the summer of 1985,” even though the amendment erased defendant’s alibi def | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1991See United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir.) (time does not become a material element of the offense merely because an alibi defense is presented), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 837 (1983); State v. Jackson, 221 Or. 315, 325 , 351 P.2d 439, 444 (1960) (defendant in a criminal proceeding cannot make time a material element by a defense of alibi); cf. Dunbar, 152 Vt. at 403-04 , 566 A.2d at 972-73 (State not barred from amending its information, changing the time of offense from on or about a specific date to “during the summer of 1985,” even though the amendment erased defendant’s alibi def 1991See United States v. King, 703 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir.) (time does not become a material element of the offense merely because an alibi defense is presented), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 837 (1983); State v. Jackson, 221 Or. 315, 325 , 351 P.2d 439, 444 (1960) (defendant in a criminal proceeding cannot make time a material element by a defense of alibi); cf. Dunbar, 152 Vt. at 403-04 , 566 A.2d at 972-73 (State not barred from amending its information, changing the time of offense from on or about a specific date to “during the summer of 1985,” even though the amendment erased defendant’s alibi def | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coffeltgreen2 sentences1991See State v. Coffelt, 33 Wash. 2d 106, 109 , 204 P.2d 521, 523 (1949) (en banc) (“[W]hen the complaining witness has fixed the exact time when the act charged was committed, and the defense is an alibi, the commission of the crime on the exact date so fixed is the controlling issue, and the jury should be instructed that they must find the act to have been committed at that time.”); see also Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 266 (“When a specific date is presented as the date of the alleged crime, an instruction covering a broad period of time may not be given which would nullify an alibi defense . . . .”) 1991See State v. Coffelt, 33 Wash. 2d 106, 109 , 204 P.2d 521, 523 (1949) (en banc) (“[W]hen the complaining witness has fixed the exact time when the act charged was committed, and the defense is an alibi, the commission of the crime on the exact date so fixed is the controlling issue, and the jury should be instructed that they must find the act to have been committed at that time.”); see also Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 266 (“When a specific date is presented as the date of the alleged crime, an instruction covering a broad period of time may not be given which would nullify an alibi defense . . . .”) | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinneygreen2 sentences1991See State v. Coffelt, 33 Wash. 2d 106, 109 , 204 P.2d 521, 523 (1949) (en banc) (“[W]hen the complaining witness has fixed the exact time when the act charged was committed, and the defense is an alibi, the commission of the crime on the exact date so fixed is the controlling issue, and the jury should be instructed that they must find the act to have been committed at that time.”); see also Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 266 (“When a specific date is presented as the date of the alleged crime, an instruction covering a broad period of time may not be given which would nullify an alibi defense . . . .”) 1991See State v. Coffelt, 33 Wash. 2d 106, 109 , 204 P.2d 521, 523 (1949) (en banc) (“[W]hen the complaining witness has fixed the exact time when the act charged was committed, and the defense is an alibi, the commission of the crime on the exact date so fixed is the controlling issue, and the jury should be instructed that they must find the act to have been committed at that time.”); see also Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 266 (“When a specific date is presented as the date of the alleged crime, an instruction covering a broad period of time may not be given which would nullify an alibi defense . . . .”) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Smolingreen1 sentence1979See United States v. McConney, 329 F.2d 467, 470 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Smolin, 182 F.2d 782, 785-86 (2d Cir. 1950). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Norman Rowe McConneygreen1 sentence1979See United States v. McConney, 329 F.2d 467, 470 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Smolin, 182 F.2d 782, 785-86 (2d Cir. 1950). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Milton L. Hayward
green
2 sentences2006In Hayward, the appeals court refused to find harmless error when the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it "must" return a guilty verdict if it found the government disproved defendant's alibi defense. 420 F.2d at 144 . 2006In Hayward , the appeals court refused to find harmless error when the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it “must” return a guilty verdict if it found the government disproved defendant’s alibi defense. 420 F.2d at 144 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences1994Defendant must be given a “fair opportunity to prepare a defense in light of the circumstances of the case,” id. at 465 , 568 A.2d at 337 , but he has no vested right to an alibi defense. 1994Defendant must be given a “fair opportunity to prepare a defense in light of the circumstances of the case,” id. at 465 , 568 A.2d at 337 , but he has no vested right to an alibi defense. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wardius v. Oregon
green
1 sentence1988Defendant’s claim is based entirely on Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973), where the United States Supreme Court struck down an Oregon rule that required the defendant to give pretrial notice of the use of an alibi defense. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Charles M. Luck v. United States
green
1 sentence1982Gordon v. United States, which guided our decision in State v. Gardner, was grounded in the rationale of Luck v. United States, 348 F.2d 763 (D.C. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.