Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 13 Chapter 165
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 5321 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(Cite as: 13 V.S.A. § 5321)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2005–2018 · leading case: State v. Scott, 195 Vt. 330 (Vt. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Scott, 195 Vt. 330 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 2× “Notwithstanding the identical statutory language defining “victim” for both sentencing and restitution purposes, the statute allowing a crime “victim” to testify at sentencing, 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a), requires a more liberal construction.”
State v. Randell Blake, 174 A.3d 126 (Vt. 2017). “See 13 V.S.A. § 5321. Additionally, the State, through the prosecuting attorney and not the victim, provides the defendant with a statement regarding the amount of restitution claimed.”
State v. Scott, 2013 VT 103 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 2× “Notwithstanding the identical statutory language defining “victim” for both sentencing and restitution purposes, the statute allowing a crime ‘Victim” to testify at sentencing, 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a), requires a more liberal construction.”
State v. Jeffrey Davis, 186 A.3d 1088 (Vt. 2018). “See 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a)(2) (stating that the "victim of a crime" has right to "appear, personally, to express reasonably his or her views concerning the crime, the person convicted, and the need for restitution").”
State v. Daley, 2006 VT 5 (Vt. 2006). “§ 5321(a)(2), which provides that the “victim of a crime” has the right at sentencing “to appear, personally, to express reasonably his or her views concerning the crime, the person convicted, and the need for restitution.” The court ruled that, as co-workers of Sergeant Johnson…”
United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). “§ 77-38-4 (7) (same); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 5321 (same); Wash.”
State v. Ernest Phillips, 195 A.3d 1099 (Vt. 2018). “" The court then expressed its doubts as to whether recent amendments to 13 V.S.A. § 5321 had been satisfied, which require, among other things, that prosecutors involve victims throughout the plea agreement negotiation process.”
United States v. Dengenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). “§ 77-38-4(7) (same); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 13, § 5321 (same); WASH.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 5321(a) — 2 cases
State v. Scott, 195 Vt. 330 (Vt. 2013). “Notwithstanding the identical statutory language defining “victim” for both sentencing and restitution purposes, the statute allowing a crime “victim” to testify at sentencing, 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a), requires a more liberal construction.”
State v. Scott, 2013 VT 103 (Vt. 2013). “Notwithstanding the identical statutory language defining “victim” for both sentencing and restitution purposes, the statute allowing a crime ‘Victim” to testify at sentencing, 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a), requires a more liberal construction.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 5321(a)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Jeffrey Davis, 186 A.3d 1088 (Vt. 2018). “See 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a)(2) (stating that the "victim of a crime" has right to "appear, personally, to express reasonably his or her views concerning the crime, the person convicted, and the need for restitution").”
State v. Scott, 195 Vt. 330 (Vt. 2013). “Notwithstanding the identical statutory language defining “victim” for both sentencing and restitution purposes, the statute allowing a crime “victim” to testify at sentencing, 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a), requires a more liberal construction.”
State v. Scott, 2013 VT 103 (Vt. 2013). “Notwithstanding the identical statutory language defining “victim” for both sentencing and restitution purposes, the statute allowing a crime ‘Victim” to testify at sentencing, 13 V.S.A. § 5321(a), requires a more liberal construction.”
State v. Daley, 2006 VT 5 (Vt. 2006). “§ 5321(a)(2), which provides that the “victim of a crime” has the right at sentencing “to appear, personally, to express reasonably his or her views concerning the crime, the person convicted, and the need for restitution.” The court ruled that, as co-workers of Sergeant Johnson…”
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.