VA: Youthful offender law nixes sex assault prosecution

Source: rutlandherald.com 9/10/22

A man charged with sexual assault on a 14-year-old got the charges against him dismissed due to a gap in Vermont’s youthful offender law, prosecutors said this week.

In a decision handed down Friday in a case that originated in Rutland County, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state could not appeal the family court’s dismissal of a juvenile delinquency petition, overturning a precedent from 1991.
“In crafting the juvenile-delinquency statutes, the Legislature explicitly intended to protect minors from the consequences associated with a criminal record,” the decision reads.

The “minor” in question, identified in the decision only as “S.D.,” was an 18-year-old at the time he allegedly had sex with a 14-year-old girl — the third of three felonies the decision indicates he had been charged with since turning 18 in May 2018. The other two were impeding a public officer and aggravated auto theft.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Once again, I say DAs love sex crimes – free felony convictions with astronomical sentences and virtually no burden of proof. If there weren’t a sex crime dismissed in the juvenile court, the DA probably wouldn’t care less. Would likely even be grateful for not dding to the docket.

Who wants to bet there’ll be an effort in the Vermont legislature to exempt sex crimes from the juvenile delinquency procedures in this story?

That wasn’t a gap in the system that was the family courts decision not to ruin this young mans life, it didn’t say he rapped or did anything violent to the victim so I’m guessing they were probably dating at the time
If this guy was in California the DA’s office would of laughed in the family courts faces and just charged him with something else.
The DA in my case Dena Benett from the TV show Surviver, didn’t cut me any slack, 8 years after she convicted me, her and a riverside county sheriff track me down and arrested me for FTR and 2 years later arrested me again for FTR even though I okayed it with my PO to go spend time with children 2 days out of the week.
Dena told my PO to stay out of it and she tucked her tail between her legs and ran away and left me hanging.
This time it was another DA on my case but that didn’t matter she still would showed up 8 months pregnant wobbling into court and whispering in the new DA’s ear.
I don’t believe teenagers should be placed on the registry for dating other teenagers with a five year age gap or less, thats just cruel and unusual punishment I’m glad this young man slipped through the cracks

This is in Vermont (VT), not in Virginia (VA).