State v. Wainwright
Supreme Court of Vermont
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
- People v. FergusonIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
- King v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- State v. OliverSupreme Court of Vermont · 1989
- State v. GoodhueSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.