Legal Opinion

State v. Velez

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided January 3, 2003No. 02-082PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

¶ 1. The State takes this interlocutory appeal, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1), from a Windham District Court decision granting defendant Jorge Velez’s motion to suppress his evidentiary breath test results. Defendant argued that he was deprived of the right to counsel that 23 V.S.A. § 1202(c) establishes for DUI detainees because the on-call public defender contacted by the arresting officer refused to speak with him. In light of this Court’s decision in State v. Gilman, 173 Vt. 110, 787 A.2d 1238 (2001), the district court granted defendant’s motion to suppress on the grounds that even if the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. MadonnaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
  2. State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  3. State v. GilmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  4. State v. MoraleSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  5. State v. FredetteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1997

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. Paul AikenSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  2. State v. Kent EatonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2026
  3. State v. VelezSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API