Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 20 Chapter 113
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932 (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 : STATE DNA DATABASE AND STATE DATA BANK

(Cite as: 20 V.S.A. § 1932)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2007–2014 · leading case: State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (Vt. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 11× “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion's reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
State v. Medina, 2014 VT 69 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 6× “20 V.S.A. §§ 1932 (10)-(11), 1938(c)-(d).”
State v. Ritter, 2008 VT 72 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2× “For the reasons stated in Martin , the compulsory DNA sampling of persons convicted of a violent crime, as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 1932(12), does not violate Article 11.”
State v. Wigg, 2007 VT 48 (Vt. 2007). “Finally, defendant challenges the DNA statute under the state and federal constitutions. We affirm. ¶ 2. In 2003, a jury convicted defendant of felony lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, 13 V.”
State v. Martin (Vt. 2008). · cites it 6× “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion’s reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
State v. Wigg, 2007 VT 48 (Vt. 2007). “We affirm. ¶ 2. In 2003, a jury convicted defendant of felony lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, 13 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932(12) — 4 cases
State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (Vt. 2008). “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion's reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
State v. Medina, 2014 VT 69 (Vt. 2014). “20 V.S.A. §§ 1932 (10)-(11), 1938(c)-(d).”
State v. Ritter, 2008 VT 72 (Vt. 2008). “For the reasons stated in Martin , the compulsory DNA sampling of persons convicted of a violent crime, as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 1932(12), does not violate Article 11.”
State v. Martin (Vt. 2008). “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion’s reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932(12)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (Vt. 2008). “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion's reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
State v. Martin (Vt. 2008). “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion’s reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932(12)(B) — 1 case
State v. Medina, 2014 VT 69 (Vt. 2014). “20 V.S.A. §§ 1932 (10)-(11), 1938(c)-(d).”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932(12)(C) — 1 case
State v. Medina, 2014 VT 69 (Vt. 2014). “20 V.S.A. §§ 1932 (10)-(11), 1938(c)-(d).”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932(12)(M) — 1 case
State v. Wigg, 2007 VT 48 (Vt. 2007). “We affirm. ¶ 2. In 2003, a jury convicted defendant of felony lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, 13 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932(4) — 2 cases
State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (Vt. 2008). “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion's reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
State v. Martin (Vt. 2008). “See 20 V.S.A. § 1932 (2000). Although we need not reach the question today, this opinion’s reasoning would apply with even greater force to violent felons subject to sampling under the prior version of the statute.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, § 1932(M) — 1 case
State v. Wigg, 2007 VT 48 (Vt. 2007). “Finally, defendant challenges the DNA statute under the state and federal constitutions. We affirm. ¶ 2. In 2003, a jury convicted defendant of felony lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, 13 V.”
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.