Legal Opinion

In Re Inquest Proceedings

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 21, 1996No. 96-108PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Appellants, parents of a twenty-five-year-old son, appeal from an order of the Chittenden District Court that denied their motion to quash an inquest subpoena and held them in civil contempt for failing to testify at an inquest proceeding. Appellants assert a testimonial parent-child privilege with respect to any incriminating communications imparted to them in confidence by their son and to their own observations of any incriminating conduct of their son. We affirm.

Vermont has not recognized a parent-child privilege either at common law or in our rules of evidence. Indeed, the majority of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. United States v. Clara B. Penn, A/K/A Clara B. AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
  3. In re N. H.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1977
  4. United States v. Patricia Davies and Martin KaprelianCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  5. People v. HarrellNew York Court of Appeals · 1983

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In Re Grand Jury ProceedingsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
  2. In Re Grievance of DanforthSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  3. In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Unemancipated Minor ChildDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1996
  4. Lawson v. Fisher-Price, Inc.District Court, D. Vermont · 1999
  5. United States v. Red ElkDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 1997

5 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