Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1027 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 004 : OTHER DISTURBANCES OF THE PEACE

(Cite as: 13 V.S.A. § 1027)

§ 1027. Disturbing peace by use of telephone or other electronic communications

(a) A person who, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or annoy, makes contact by means of a telephonic or other electronic communication with another and makes any request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent; threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person; or disturbs, or attempts to disturb, by repeated telephone calls or other electronic communications, whether or not conversation ensues, the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communication or communications are received shall be fined not more than $250.00 or be imprisoned not more than three months, or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or of an offense under the laws of another state or of the United States that would have been an offense under this section if committed in this State, the defendant shall be fined not more than $500.00 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

(b) An intent to terrify, threaten, harass, or annoy may be inferred by the trier of fact from the use of obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language or the making of a threat or statement or repeated telephone calls or other electronic communications as set forth in this section and any trial court may in its discretion include a statement to this effect in its jury charge.

(c) An offense committed by use of a telephone or other electronic communication device as set forth in this section shall be considered to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls originated or at the place where the communication or communications or calls were received. (Added 1967, No. 171, § 1; amended 1999, No. 124 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; 2013, No. 150 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 3× “First, 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a) provides that a person commits the offense of disturbing the peace by use of telephonic or other electronic communication if the person, “with intent to .”

State v. Wilcox, 628 A.2d 924 (Vt. 1993). · cites it 3× “1 Because the cited Arizona case was decided after Vermont enacted 13 V.S.A. § 1027, there is-no presumption that the Legislature adopted the construction of the Arizona statute provided by that case.”

State v. Sanville, 2011 VT 34 (Vt. 2011). “We held that the probationer’s threatening telephone call to the victim evinced an intent “to stalk [the victim] for the purpose of injuring him or her,” which was sufficiently threatening behavior to violate this same condition “M.”

State v. Hastings, 330 A.2d 87 (Vt. 1974). · cites it 3× “The respondent, Henry Hastings, was charged by information with disturbing the peace by use of the telephone pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 1027. He was tried by jury and found guilty of eleven counts of violating 13 V.”

State v. Michael Harwood, 2020 VT 65 (Vt. 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 1043(a)(2), and two counts of disturbing the peace by phone, 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a). An affidavit accompanying the information alleged that on the evening of July 21, 2017, defendant saw his ex-girlfriend in Poultney, Vermont outside a convenience store.”

State v. Wyrocki, 2012 VT 7 (Vt. 2012). · cites it 2× “The statute at issue, 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a), penalizes, in pertinent part: [a] person who, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass or annoy, makes contact by means of a telephonic or other electronic communication with another and .”

City of Redmond v. Burkhart, 991 P.2d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “]” Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1027 (a)(ii). In reversing the conviction, the Wilcox court concluded that under the language of the statute “intent should be measured at the time the person telephones” or initiates the call.”

State v. Jamie Prue (Vt. 2025). · cites it 2× “The supporting affidavit alleged that defendant sent a Department for Children and Families (DCF) worker a series of “threatening messages” after she informed him of the results of a paternity test. It also incorporated what the affiant described as screenshots of defendant’s…”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1027(a) — 6 cases

State v. William Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (Vt. 2018). “First, 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a) provides that a person commits the offense of disturbing the peace by use of telephonic or other electronic communication if the person, “with intent to .”

State v. Sanville, 2011 VT 34 (Vt. 2011). “We held that the probationer’s threatening telephone call to the victim evinced an intent “to stalk [the victim] for the purpose of injuring him or her,” which was sufficiently threatening behavior to violate this same condition “M.”

State v. Wilcox, 628 A.2d 924 (Vt. 1993). “1 Because the cited Arizona case was decided after Vermont enacted 13 V.S.A. § 1027, there is-no presumption that the Legislature adopted the construction of the Arizona statute provided by that case.”

State v. Michael Harwood, 2020 VT 65 (Vt. 2020). “§ 1043(a)(2), and two counts of disturbing the peace by phone, 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a). An affidavit accompanying the information alleged that on the evening of July 21, 2017, defendant saw his ex-girlfriend in Poultney, Vermont outside a convenience store.”

State v. Jamie Prue (Vt. 2025). “The supporting affidavit alleged that defendant sent a Department for Children and Families (DCF) worker a series of “threatening messages” after she informed him of the results of a paternity test. It also incorporated what the affiant described as screenshots of defendant’s…”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1027(a)(iii) — 1 case

State v. Wyrocki, 2012 VT 7 (Vt. 2012). “The statute at issue, 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a), penalizes, in pertinent part: [a] person who, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass or annoy, makes contact by means of a telephonic or other electronic communication with another and .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.