Case Title: State v. Premo

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-08-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Premo  (96-424); 168 Vt. 600; 719 A.2d 398

[Filed 18-Aug-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-424

                               JUNE TERM, 1998

State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont,
                                }     Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
Dennis Premo                    }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 980-3-96CnCr

               In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       In this prosecution for violation of an abuse prevention order, the
  State has taken an interlocutory appeal challenging the jury instruction
  the district court proposed to give to define "harassment."  The State
  charged that defendant harassed the victim in violation of an abuse
  prevention order that prohibited harassment.  The court ruled that it would
  instruct the jury that violation of an abuse prevention order is a specific
  intent crime and that the definition of harassment contained in 13 V.S.A. §
  1061(4) would apply.  The State offered no alternative definition of
  harassment, arguing that the jury should be instructed to apply the term
  "based on its common sense meaning."

       Defendant, who is represented by retained counsel, has declined to
  file a brief in this case.  The case was presented to the Court on briefs
  approximately nineteen months after permission for interlocutory appeal was
  granted by the district court.

       In State v. Goyette, 166 Vt. 299, 304,