State v. Decoteau
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Dissent
Reiber, C.J.,
¶21. dissenting. I agree that because defendant never objected at trial to admission of the hearsay evidence he can prevail only if we conclude that this is an extraordinary case involving manifest injustice. Unlike the majority, however, I conclude that plain error is conspicuously absent in this case. Indeed, a review of the record, particularly defendant’s own testimony, demonstrates unequivocally that defendant violated an express probation condition, and further that he failed to meet his burden *445of showing that the violation was beyond his control and therefore not willful.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. SblendorioCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- State v. AustinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1996
- State v. PelicanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.