Supreme Court of Vermont· 5/18/1984
State v. Bonilla
Citations
- 477 A.2d 983
- 144 Vt. 411
- 1984 Vt. LEXIS 488
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- requiring election between three acts of arson because they took place over three-day span
- the separate acts committed must be closely related in time or circumstances as to constitute one criminal transaction
- the separate acts committed must be closely related in time or circumstances as to constitute one criminal transaction
- conviction reversed where defendant was charged with one count of arson and one count of insurance fraud in connection with three fires over a three-day period
- “[W]here there is evidence of many acts, any one of which would constitute the offense charged, an election must be made.”
- “[W]here there is evidence of many acts, any one of which would constitute the offense charged, an election must be made.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Billings, Hill, Underwood, Peck, Gibson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. CantrellSupreme Court of Vermont· 1989-02-10· cited 34×
- State v. DuffSupreme Court of Vermont· 1988-08-26· cited 31×
- State v. ShawSupreme Court of Vermont· 1987-12-11· cited 29×
- State v. VuleySupreme Court of Vermont· 2013-02-08· cited 19×
- State v. GilmanSupreme Court of Vermont· 1992-03-27· cited 17×
- State v. CoutureSupreme Court of Vermont· 1985-09-06· cited 16×
- State v. HolcombSupreme Court of Vermont· 1991-03-29· cited 15×
- State v. CorlissSupreme Court of Vermont· 1987-12-18· cited 9×
- State v. Nathaniel R. PeatmanSupreme Court of Vermont· 2018-03-16· cited 3×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- The People v. DamenIllinois Supreme Court· 1963-09-27· cited 196×
- Burlison v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1973-11-19· cited 185×
- People v. EstorgaSupreme Court of Colorado· 1980-06-23· cited 88×
- Cody v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1961-04-05· cited 66×
- State v. BaileySupreme Court of Vermont· 1984-01-27· cited 64×
- Woodmansee v. StonemanSupreme Court of Vermont· 1975-08-21· cited 40×
- People v. AlvaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1979-03-14· cited 36×
- Louis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1950-09-06· cited 25×
- State v. BarrSupreme Court of Vermont· 1905-10-25· cited 19×
- State v. WillettSupreme Court of Vermont· 1905-11-03· cited 13×
- State v. McDermottSupreme Court of Vermont· 1977-02-01· cited 12×
- Adjmi v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1963-05-29· cited 11×
- Dugan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1961-03-22· cited 10×
- State v. FieldSupreme Court of Vermont· 1921-10-04· cited 6×
- Montgomery v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1953-11-20· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.