State v. Infante

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Suter

    292 Ill. App. 3d 358 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    An alibi does not constitute evidence that the offense occurred on another date. State v. Infante, 157 Vt. 109, 112, 596 A.2d 1289, 1291 (1991). It is not the law that IPI Criminal 3d No. 3.01 can be given every time a defendant presents alibi evidence.

  2. State v. Nuzum

    723 N.W.2d 555 (S.D. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    493 F.2d at 394. [ΒΆ 13.] Nuzum also points to People v. Suter, 292 Ill.App.3d 358, 226 Ill.Dec. 568, 685 N.E.2d 1023, 1029 (1997); State v. Infante, 157 Vt. 109, 596 A.2d 1289, 1291 (1991) and State v. Brown, 35 Wash.2d 379, 213 P.2d 305, 307-08 (1949) to bear his contention that the instruction should have restricted the jury's determination of guilt to a finding that the offense occurred on a specific date. The facts in these cases are also distinguishable from the instant case.

  3. State v. Castegnaro

    SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2013-378 (Vt. Jul. 24, 2014)

    First and foremost, as defendant acknowledges, the actual date that the alleged acts occurred is not an element of the crimes. See State v. Infante, 157 Vt. 109, 111-12 (1991) (reaffirming the rule that time is generally not considered an element of an offense, and the jury need not be instructed to find that the offense occurred on a specific date, unless defendant asserts a "defense that makes time critical" such as an alibi defense). Although the State must prove that defendant's acts occurred while a relief from abuse order was in effect, it is not generally required to establish the date of the offense with certainty. Defendant does not contest that he was served with a lawful abuse prevention order containing the conditions at issue in July 2012. Ample evidence supports the jury's conclusion that defendant committed the acts supporting his conviction well after July 2012.

  4. State v. Gomes

    162 Vt. 319 (Vt. 1994)   Cited 11 times
    Explaining that expert testimony may lend improper reliability to victim

    See id. "The fact that a defendant raises an alibi defense does not alter these holdings and does not make time an essential element." State v. Infante, 157 Vt. 109, 111, 596 A.2d 1289, 1291 (1989). In determining whether the notice of time in the informations was reasonable, we consider all the circumstances of the case, including (1) the age and circumstances of the victim, (2) how the abuse was allegedly carried out, and (3) the State's ability to be more specific.