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

1,392 chars
¶ 40.        
Moreover, strictly enforcing the § 252(c) certificate requirement does
not ensure that the conditions provided therein will be unambiguous and clear,
as asserted by the majority.  Ante, ¶ 16.  The majority cites State
v. Blaise, 2012 VT 2, 191 Vt. 564, 38 A.3d 1167 (mem.), as an example of
the type of confusion that may arise when conditions are not expressly
certified in writing.  In Blaise, a general condition requiring
participation in counseling or training to the satisfaction of the probation
officer was imposed.  After the defendant was charged with violating
conditions for failing to complete a particular program, he argued that the
probation officer’s instruction to attend the program was communicated either
ambiguously or not at all.  Id. § 13.  The trial court
found otherwise, but even assuming there was uncertainty in Blaise, it
would not be averted by the majority’s holding today.  In Blaise,
there was no question regarding whether the defendant received the required §
252(c) certificate; the issue was the meaning of the condition.  Simply
requiring conditions to be in writing and included in a certificate does not
ensure that those conditions will be unambiguous and clearly stated.  Conversely,
even without a § 252(c) certificate, a condition can be plainly stated and
understood by all parties, as the trial court here found.