7 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1931–2018 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. Johnsongreen1 sentence2018See State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505 , 511 (Mo. 2017) (explaining that court has discretion to reach challenges to constitutional facial validity of statute not raised below); Hill v. City of Urbana , 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 , 1112 (1997) (stating that courts have discretion in implementing waiver doctrine to reach unpreserved claims). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Onoratogreen2 sentences2011See Brooks, 778 N.E.2d at 342 (“The fear is that the jury could infer defendant’s guilt from his refusal to submit to a test, even though the results of the test are inadmissible to prove defendant’s guilt.”); see also Onorato, 171 Vt. at 579 , 762 A.2d at 860 (“Because it is highly equivocal and circumstantial, the admissibility of attempted suicide evidence [to show consciousness of guilt] may introduce remote, secondary concerns that might confuse a jury.”). 2011See Brooks, 778 N.E.2d at 342 (“The fear is that the jury could infer defendant’s guilt from his refusal to submit to a test, even though the results of the test are inadmissible to prove defendant’s guilt.”); see also Onorato, 171 Vt. at 579 , 762 A.2d at 860 (“Because it is highly equivocal and circumstantial, the admissibility of attempted suicide evidence [to show consciousness of guilt] may introduce remote, secondary concerns that might confuse a jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2011See Brooks, 778 N.E.2d at 342 (“The fear is that the jury could infer defendant’s guilt from his refusal to submit to a test, even though the results of the test are inadmissible to prove defendant’s guilt.”); see also Onorato, 171 Vt. at 579 , 762 A.2d at 860 (“Because it is highly equivocal and circumstantial, the admissibility of attempted suicide evidence [to show consciousness of guilt] may introduce remote, secondary concerns that might confuse a jury.”). 2011See Brooks, 268 Ill.Dec. 350 , 778 N.E.2d at 342 ("The fear is that the jury could infer defendant's guilt from his refusal to submit to a test, even though the results of the test are inadmissible to prove defendant's guilt."); see also Onorato, 171 Vt. at 579 , 762 A.2d at 860 ("Because it is highly equivocal and circumstantial, the admissibility of attempted suicide evidence [to show consciousness of guilt] may introduce remote, secondary concerns that might confuse a jury."). | 1 | 1 |
In Re AKgreen1 sentence2001See In re A.K., 153 Vt. 462, 465 , 571 A.2d 75, 77-78 (1990) (failure to raise issue before the trial court results in waiver). | 1 | 1 |
In re A.K.green1 sentence2001See In re A.K., 153 Vt. 462, 465 , 571 A.2d 75, 77-78 (1990) (failure to raise issue before the trial court results in waiver). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1987As a result of defendant’s silence, the court concluded that defendant “was offered a blood test and he chose not to accept it.” The court’s analysis appears to hinge on the fact that defendant made no response when the officer read to defendant, at the barracks, that part of the “Sample Request Form” that reads: “Since I am taking you to jail, you must tell me at this time if you want a blood test so I can make arrangements.” One of the primary purposes of the right to an independent blood test guaranteed by § 1202(c) is “to protect a defendant against possible error involved in testing or in 1987As a result of defendant’s silence, the court concluded that defendant “was offered a blood test and he chose not to accept it.” The court’s analysis appears to hinge on the fact that defendant made no response when the officer read to defendant, at the barracks, that part of the “Sample Request Form” that reads: “Since I am taking you to jail, you must tell me at this time if you want a blood test so I can make arrangements.” One of the primary purposes of the right to an independent blood test guaranteed by § 1202(c) is “to protect a defendant against possible error involved in testing or in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. City of Urbana
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505 , 511 (Mo. 2017) (explaining that court has discretion to reach challenges to constitutional facial validity of statute not raised below); Hill v. City of Urbana , 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 , 1112 (1997) (stating that courts have discretion in implementing waiver doctrine to reach unpreserved claims). 2018See State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505 , 511 (Mo. 2017) (explaining that court has discretion to reach challenges to constitutional facial validity of statute not raised below); Hill v. City of Urbana , 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 , 1112 (1997) (stating that courts have discretion in implementing waiver doctrine to reach unpreserved claims). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Hinchliffe
green
2 sentences2018Although we note that this Court will often decline to entertain a constitutional challenge that a party failed to raise below, see, e.g., State v. Hinchliffe , 2009 VT 111 , ¶ 31, 186 Vt. 487 , 987 A.2d 988 ("Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in waiver." (quotation omitted) ), we may, in our discretion, entertain a facial challenge premised on different grounds than those specifically raised below. 2018Although we note that this Court will often decline to entertain a constitutional challenge that a party failed to raise below, see, e.g., State v. Hinchliffe , 2009 VT 111 , ¶ 31, 186 Vt. 487 , 987 A.2d 988 ("Even when the defendant asserts a violation of constitutional rights, failure to promptly raise the issue before the trial court results in waiver." (quotation omitted) ), we may, in our discretion, entertain a facial challenge premised on different grounds than those specifically raised below. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Magoon
green
2 sentences1975The position of the defendant is that the results of the test should have been excluded because the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for its admission under standards set out in State v. Magoon, 128 Vt. 363 , 264 A.2d 779 (1970). 1975The position of the defendant is that the results of the test should have been excluded because the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for its admission under standards set out in State v. Magoon, 128 Vt. 363 , 264 A.2d 779 (1970). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Patterson v. State
green
1 sentence1972The reasoning allowing the admission into evidence of the results of the test of a sample under such circumstances is best summed up in Patterson v. State, supra, 160 S.E.2d at 817 : “. . . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Crane v. Campbell
green
1 sentence1931People v. Alfano, supra, 322 Ill. 384 , 153 N. E., 729, 731 ; Crane v. Campbell, supra. Such legislation is merely an additional instrument which the state supplies in the effort to enforce the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
The People v. Alfano
neutral
2 sentences1931People v. Alfano, supra, 322 Ill. 384 , 153 N. E., 729, 731 ; Crane v. Campbell, supra. Such legislation is merely an additional instrument which the state supplies in the effort to enforce the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment. 1931People v. Alfano, supra, 322 Ill. 384 , 153 N. E., 729, 731 ; Crane v. Campbell, supra. Such legislation is merely an additional instrument which the state supplies in the effort to enforce the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.