Supreme Court of Vermont· 3/29/1991

State v. Holcomb

Citations

590 A.2d 894
156 Vt. 251
1991 Vt. LEXIS 65

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding failure of court to force election of charge did not amount to plain error since defendant’s acts were continuous and defendant did not distinguish between acts in preparing defense
finding no plain error in jury instruction that did not require unanimity as to ground on which defendant was being convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct; instruction did not distinguish between “fondling [the victim’s] genital area and attempting to remove his pants”
“[Failure to give a limiting instruction... in the absence of a request or objection, will be grounds for reversal only on a finding of plain error.”
“failure to give a limiting instruction ..., in the absence of a request or objection, will be grounds for reversal only on a finding of plain error”
no plain error where uncharged bad act was entirely different and thus created no risk that jury would use the evidence as proof that the defendant was predisposed to commit charged crime
“[T]he failure to give a limiting instruction under [Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure] 26(c), in the absence of a request or objection, will be grounds for reversal only on a finding of plain error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allen, Gibson, Dooley, Morse, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.