Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 13 Chapter 81
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705 (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 : INJURIES TO BUILDINGS AND THEIR APPURTENANCES

(Cite as: 13 V.S.A. § 3705)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 21× “Read as a whole, 13 V.S.A. § 3705 lays out several trespass offenses, distinguished by the location of the offense and the resulting punishment, and thus creates a cohesive statutory scheme.”
State v. Kreth, 553 A.2d 554 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 9× “The defendant in this case was convicted of violation of our criminal trespass law, 13 V.S.A. § 3705(d). The essential facts are that defendant, after drinking heavily, drove off the road during a severe winter storm.”
State v. Kirchoff, 587 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 5× “See 13 V.S.A. § 3705. The Court's conclusion was justified in part by its view that "a case-by-case approach [would not] provide a workable accommodation between the needs of law enforcement and the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.”
Sandra Baird & Jared Carter, 2016 VT 6 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Deputy Chief Jannine Wright testified at trial that BPD officers use the same blank no-trespass form for both orders pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3705, an issue not on appeal here, as well as orders issued under the Marketplace District trespass ordinance.”
State v. Fanger, 665 A.2d 36 (Vt. 1995). · cites it 3× “The State of Vermont appeals the Windham District Court’s dismissal of one count of unlawM trespass in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3705(d) against defendant, Bruno Fanger.”
State v. Gillard, 88 A.3d 389 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 7× “The State charged defendants with unlawful trespass under 13 V.S.A. § 3705, which reads, in part: (a) A person shall be imprisoned for not more than three months or fined not more than $500.”
State v. Cram, 2008 VT 55 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2× “Defendant appeals a ruling of the Addison District Court denying her motion to dismiss charges under the unlawful trespass statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3705(d). Following the district court’s ruling, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial.”
Crowell v. Kirkpatrick, 667 F. Supp. 2d 391 (D. Vt. 2009). · cites it 3× “Both Plaintiffs were ultimately charged with unlawful trespass in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3705(a) and resisting arrest in violation of 13 V.”
State v. Turner, 550 A.2d 5 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 7× “Defendant appeals his conviction of unlawful trespass in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3705. We affirm. I. Defendant and complainant are next-door neighbors and share a common driveway.”
State v. Warshow, 410 A.2d 1000 (Vt. 1979). · cites it 2× “This is an appeal from convictions for unlawful trespass under 13 V.S.A. § 3705. The sole issue before the Court is whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence on the defense of necessity at trial on the offer of proof made by the defendants at the preliminary hearing…”
Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Emerick served Huminski with the May 24 Notice pursuant to Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705 (a)(1). According to section 3705: A person shall be imprisoned for not more than three months or fined not more than $500.”
State v. Elizabeth MacFarland, 2021 VT 87 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 5× “” As we have intimated in recent cases looking at 13 V.S.A. § 3705(a), we now conclude that notice by “actual communication” does denote a subjective standard.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705(a) — 24 cases
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). “Read as a whole, 13 V.S.A. § 3705 lays out several trespass offenses, distinguished by the location of the offense and the resulting punishment, and thus creates a cohesive statutory scheme.”
State v. Kirchoff, 587 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1991). “See 13 V.S.A. § 3705. The Court's conclusion was justified in part by its view that "a case-by-case approach [would not] provide a workable accommodation between the needs of law enforcement and the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.”
Crowell v. Kirkpatrick, 667 F. Supp. 2d 391 (D. Vt. 2009). “Both Plaintiffs were ultimately charged with unlawful trespass in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3705(a) and resisting arrest in violation of 13 V.”
State v. Malik A. Pratt, 2017 VT 9 (Vt. 2017).
State v. Tetrault, 2012 VT 51 (Vt. 2012).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705(a)(1) — 10 cases
Sandra Baird & Jared Carter, 2016 VT 6 (Vt. 2016). “” Deputy Chief Jannine Wright testified at trial that BPD officers use the same blank no-trespass form for both orders pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3705, an issue not on appeal here, as well as orders issued under the Marketplace District trespass ordinance.”
State v. Dixon, 725 A.2d 920 (Vt. 1999).
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). “Read as a whole, 13 V.S.A. § 3705 lays out several trespass offenses, distinguished by the location of the offense and the resulting punishment, and thus creates a cohesive statutory scheme.”
State v. Cram, 600 A.2d 733 (Vt. 1991).
State v. Ronald Dupuis, 197 A.3d 343 (Vt. 2018).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705(a)(1)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Elizabeth MacFarland, 2021 VT 87 (Vt. 2021). “” As we have intimated in recent cases looking at 13 V.S.A. § 3705(a), we now conclude that notice by “actual communication” does denote a subjective standard.”
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). “Read as a whole, 13 V.S.A. § 3705 lays out several trespass offenses, distinguished by the location of the offense and the resulting punishment, and thus creates a cohesive statutory scheme.”
Brush v. Old Navy LLC (D. Vt. 2023).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705(a)(1)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). “Read as a whole, 13 V.S.A. § 3705 lays out several trespass offenses, distinguished by the location of the offense and the resulting punishment, and thus creates a cohesive statutory scheme.”
State v. Elizabeth MacFarland, 2021 VT 87 (Vt. 2021). “” As we have intimated in recent cases looking at 13 V.S.A. § 3705(a), we now conclude that notice by “actual communication” does denote a subjective standard.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705(a)(2) — 2 cases
Huminski v. Rutland Cnty. Sheriff's Dept., 211 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D. Vt. 2002).
Huminski v. Rutland Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 211 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D. Vt. 2002).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705(c) — 6 cases
State v. Settle, 442 A.2d 1314 (Vt. 1982).
State v. Christman, 370 A.2d 624 (Vt. 1977).
State v. Durling, 442 A.2d 455 (Vt. 1981).
State v. Savo, 433 A.2d 292 (Vt. 1981).
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). “Read as a whole, 13 V.S.A. § 3705 lays out several trespass offenses, distinguished by the location of the offense and the resulting punishment, and thus creates a cohesive statutory scheme.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3705(d) — 12 cases
State v. Kreth, 553 A.2d 554 (Vt. 1988). “The defendant in this case was convicted of violation of our criminal trespass law, 13 V.S.A. § 3705(d). The essential facts are that defendant, after drinking heavily, drove off the road during a severe winter storm.”
State v. Fanger, 665 A.2d 36 (Vt. 1995). “The State of Vermont appeals the Windham District Court’s dismissal of one count of unlawM trespass in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3705(d) against defendant, Bruno Fanger.”
State v. Cram, 2008 VT 55 (Vt. 2008). “Defendant appeals a ruling of the Addison District Court denying her motion to dismiss charges under the unlawful trespass statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3705(d). Following the district court’s ruling, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial.”
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). “Read as a whole, 13 V.S.A. § 3705 lays out several trespass offenses, distinguished by the location of the offense and the resulting punishment, and thus creates a cohesive statutory scheme.”
State v. LaPrade, 2008 VT 83 (Vt. 2008).
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.