Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Wainwright

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided December 20, 2013No. Nos. 12-213 & 13-010Published

1Dissent

Skoglund, J.,

¶ 13. dissenting. The State here asserts, and the majority essentially agrees, that the same prior DUI conviction may be used both to criminalize a refusal to submit to an evidentiary test under 23 V.S.A. § 1201(b) and to enhance the penalty for that offense because the statute does not specifically *378prohibit it. I respectfully disagree. The argument overlooks the plain fact that the Legislature has deliberately defined a number of individual DUI offenses under § 1201, in.1uding that of refusal to submit to an alcohol test after a prior conviction, and has equally plainly defined…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. FergusonIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  3. King v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  4. State v. OliverSupreme Court of Vermont · 1989
  5. State v. GoodhueSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003

4 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