The Supreme Court may by rule provide for change of venue in criminal prosecutions
upon motion, for the prevention of prejudice to the defendant or for the convenience
of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. The court to which a prosecution
is transferred shall thereby have jurisdiction of the cause, and the same proceedings
shall be had therein as though the venue had not been changed. (Amended 1969, No. 22, § 1; 1973, No. 118, § 10, eff. Oct. 1, 1973; 1973, No. 193 (Adj. Sess.), § 3, eff. April 9, 1974; 2009, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 102.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1962–1988 · leading case: State v. Hunt, 555 A.2d 369 (Vt. 1988).
State v. Hunt, 555 A.2d 369 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 2ד21; 13 V.S.A. § 4631. Ordinarily, the exercise of that power rests with the superior court as expressly provided by law.”
State v. Truman, 204 A.2d 93 (Vt. 1964). “On May 13 respondent filed with the presiding judge an application for a change of venue under 13 V.S.A. §4631, “because the matters involved in said action have been given such wide publicity through radio stations and newspapers circulating in said County of Washington and…”
State v. Barrett, 266 A.2d 441 (Vt. 1970). “In these days of easy travel and communication, the advantages of avoiding any claim of a biased jury may far outweigh any immediate practical advantage of keeping the trial within the aroused county or district. The denial of such a motion usually insures that the issue must be…”
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.