State v. Stevens

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Stevens

    2014 Vt. 6 (Vt. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant voluntarily admitted to the police that he had assaulted the victims and further indicated that he had intended to go down the road and set the vehicle on fire with Cruickshank inside.State v. Stevens, 2003 VT 15, ¶ 2, 175 Vt. 503, 825 A.2d 8 (mem.). A jury convicted petitioner of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, kidnapping, burglary, and violating an abuse prevention order.

  2. State v. Gibney

    869 A.2d 118 (Vt. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that because this Court remanded for consideration of single issue at resentencing hearing the "court correctly refused to consider arguments defendant waived in his original appeal and that were not specified in the remand"

    State v. Grega, 170 Vt. 573, 575, 750 A.2d 978, 980-81 (1999) (mem.). We faced a similar situation in State v. Stevens, 2003 VT 15, ¶ 10, 175 Vt. 503, 825 A.2d 8 (mem.), where defendant argued an Apprendi error, after failing to raise it in the district court, and failing to claim plain error. We held that defendant had waived the argument, and we follow that same rationale here.

  3. State v. Roberts

    2024 Vt. 32 (Vt. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    State v. Grega, 168 Vt. 363, 382, 721 A.2d 445, 458 (1998). However, under the U.S. Supreme Court's test set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), "the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent the State from trying a defendant in a single trial for two statutory offenses arising from the same event, so long as each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." State v. Stevens, 2003 VT 15, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 503, 825 A.2d 8 (mem.).

  4. State v. Pierce

    SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2019-032 (Vt. Feb. 13, 2019)

    A hammer can constitute a deadly weapon. See State v. Stevens, 2003 VT 15, ¶¶ 7-8, 175 Vt. 503 (mem.) (holding that evidence that defendant attacked victim with hammer supported aggravated-assault charge, which "requires proof of the use of a deadly weapon").

  5. In re Jones

    SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2013-148 (Vt. Nov. 20, 2013)

    After reviewing the case law, the court concluded that the State could convict petitioner of separate crimes for those separate acts. See State v. Stevens, 2003 VT 15, ¶ 8, 175 Vt. 503 (mem.) (concluding that double jeopardy considerations were not implicated where three charged offenses were based on separate and distinct criminal acts); State v. Karov, 170 Vt. 650, 651-52 (2000) (mem.