Legal Opinion

State v. Danaher

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 20, 2002No. 01-469PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶ 1 Defendant Martin M. Danaher appeals the trial court’s finding that he violated the “no contact” condition of his probation. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in concluding that he violated the “no contact” probation condition by being in physical proximity to the victim and that he was not provided fair notice that such actions constituted “contact.” We affirm.

112 On October 11, 2000, defendant was charged with'one felony count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, G.D., and two counts of prohibited acts with the same victim. On January 31, 2001, pursuant to a plea…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. GleasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
  2. MacE v. AmestoyDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1991
  3. State v. SchultzWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Benson v. MuscariSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  5. Commonwealth v. TateMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1993

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Hacker, Anthony WayneCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2013
  2. People v. DevorssColorado Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. State v. Billy Joe PutnamSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  4. State v. J.S.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  5. State v. RiversSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005

23 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