Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3254 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Subchapter 001 : CRIMES; TRIAL

(Cite as: 13 V.S.A. § 3254)

§ 3254. Trial procedure; consent

In a prosecution for a crime defined in this chapter or section 2601 of this title:

(1) Lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance.

(2) Submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent.

(3) Consent shall not be demonstrated by evidence prohibited under section 3255 of this title.

(4) A sleeping or unconscious person cannot consent.

(5) A person shall be deemed to have acted without the consent of the other person where the actor:

(A) knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was incapable of consenting to the sexual act or lewd and lascivious conduct;

(B) knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was unaware that a sexual act or lewd and lascivious conduct was being committed; or

(C) knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was incapable of consenting to the sexual act or lewd and lascivious conduct with the actor because the person was substantially impaired by alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants. (Added 1977, No. 51, § 1; amended 1993, No. 100, § 13; 2013, No. 96 (Adj. Sess.), § 57; 2021, No. 68, § 3.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2013 · leading case: State v. Desautels, 2006 VT 84 (Vt. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Desautels, 2006 VT 84 (Vt. 2006). “It could be inferred from the victim’s testimony that her cooperation arose out of fear of defendant, based on the violent physical and sexual assault occurring only a few hours earlier, his continuing anger, as demonstrated by his verbal abuse, and fear for her children’s…”

State v. Deyo, 2006 VT 120 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 2× “Defendant also argues that 13 V.S.A. § 3254 comprehensively defines nonconsent for purposes of the sexual assault statute, and that the principle of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) means that where the Legislature…”

State v. Cate, 683 A.2d 1010 (Vt. 1996). “See 13 V.S.A. § 3254(2)(A), (C). II. Next, defendant argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial relied on a theory of the case that was not *413 presented at trial and incorrectly stated the law of sexual assault.”

State v. Deyo, 2006 VT 120 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 2× “Defendant also argues that 13 V.S.A. § 3254 comprehensively defines nonconsent for purposes of the sexual assault statute, and that the principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) means that where the Legislature…”

In re T.S., Juv. (Vt. 2013). “See 13 V.S.A. § 3254(1) (“Lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3254(1) — 2 cases

State v. Desautels, 2006 VT 84 (Vt. 2006). “It could be inferred from the victim’s testimony that her cooperation arose out of fear of defendant, based on the violent physical and sexual assault occurring only a few hours earlier, his continuing anger, as demonstrated by his verbal abuse, and fear for her children’s…”

In re T.S., Juv. (Vt. 2013). “See 13 V.S.A. § 3254(1) (“Lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3254(2)(A) — 1 case

State v. Cate, 683 A.2d 1010 (Vt. 1996). “See 13 V.S.A. § 3254(2)(A), (C). II. Next, defendant argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial relied on a theory of the case that was not *413 presented at trial and incorrectly stated the law of sexual assault.”

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.