Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Mandy Cram’s motion to dismiss a felony unlawful-trespass charge. The court held that circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to support an inference that Cram knew she was not licensed or privileged to enter the homeowner’s dwelling under 13 V.S.A. § 3705(d).
Holdings
- The State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable factfinder to infer that defendant knowingly entered the dwelling without a license or privilege; therefore, the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss.
Questions Presented
- Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case under Vermont's unlawful-trespass statute.
- Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support an inference that defendant knew she was not licensed or privileged to enter the dwelling.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- State v. Millette, 173 Vt. 596, 596, 795 A.2d 1182, 1183 (2002) (mem.)(applied)
- State v. Gibney, 2003 VT 26, ¶ 14, 175 Vt. 180, 825 A.2d 32(applied)
- State v. Fanger, 164 Vt. 48, 52, 665 A.2d 36, 38 (1995)(cited)
- State v. Kreth, 150 Vt. 406, 410, 553 A.2d 554, 556 (1988)(applied)
- State v. Cole, 150 Vt. 453, 456, 554 A.2d 253, 255 (1988)(applied)
- Botka v. Estate of Hoerr, 105 Wash. App. 974, 21 P.3d 723 (2001)(distinguished)
- Riley v. Harris, 177 Mass. 163, 58 N.E. 584 (1900)(distinguished)
- Jacobs v. City of Jacksonville, 762 F. Supp. 327 (M.D. Fla. 1991)(distinguished)
- State v. Cram, 157 Vt. 466, 469, 600 A.2d 733, 734-35 (1991)(cited)
- Adams v. Adams, 2005 VT 4, ¶ 15, 177 Vt. 448, 869 A.2d 124(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…