Legal Opinion

State v. Rivers

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 10, 2005No. 04-076PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

¶ 1. Defendant, Pete Rivers, appeals the Franklin District Court’s order imposing his underlying prison sentence after concluding that he violated a probation condition that prohibited defendant from having “contact” with children under the age of sixteen without prior written approval from his probation officer. In reliance on State v. Danaher, 174 Vt. 591, 819 A.2d 691 (2002) (mem.), and State v. Leggett, 167 Vt. 438, 709 A.2d 491 (1997), the court held that “proximity is contained within the meaning of ‘contact,’ ” and thus, defendant violated his probation by placing himself “in close…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. MosesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
  2. State v. WhitchurchSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
  3. State v. DanaherSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  4. State v. LeggettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
  5. State v. CoyleSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State v. LathropSupreme Court of Iowa · 2010
  2. State v. SanvilleSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  3. State v. Billy Joe PutnamSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  4. State v. BostwickSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  5. State v. Owen CornellSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API