Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)

Citation
State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Parent Document
State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2014-05-09

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text

911 chars
¶ 11. The statute at issue provides that a defendant who is placed on probation “shall be given a certificate explicitly setting forth the conditions upon which he or she is being released.” 28 V.S.A. § 252(c). Generally, the imperative “shall” indicates that the provision is mandatory. See In re Green, 2006 VT 88, ¶ 2, 180 Vt. 597, 908 A.2d 453 (mem.). Accordingly, § 252(c) mandates that a defendant receive a certificate detailing his or her conditions of probation; however, the statute does not provide an explicit consequence for the failure to comply with its terms. The issue, therefore, is the correct remedy for statutory noncompliance, as it is undisputed that defendant in this case did not receive the *446requisite certificate. As detailed below, we are persuaded by defendant’s arguments that the trial court’s failure to comply with the statutory requirement makes the condition unenforceable.