{"id":711,"date":"2012-08-03T18:25:33","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T18:25:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=711"},"modified":"2022-03-10T21:00:58","modified_gmt":"2022-03-10T21:00:58","slug":"violation-of-abuse-prevention-order-vapo","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=711","title":{"rendered":"Violation of Abuse Prevention Order (VAPO)"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li>CR22-301.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-301.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Violation of Abuse Prevention Order<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1030 (10\/12\/20)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><em>Reporter&#8217;s Note<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The instruction contains an element of general intent.\u00a0 The text of the statute, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1030, does not refer to any mental element of specific intent.\u00a0 The State does not have to prove that the defendant intended to violate the order, or even that the defendant knew his or her conduct would violate the order.\u00a0 <u>State v. Crown<\/u>, 169 Vt. 547 (1999).\u00a0 A person who is served with an abuse prevention order \u201chas the responsibility to read and understand the order and conform his [or her] conduct to it.\u201d\u00a0 <u>State v. Mott<\/u>, 166Vt. 188, 197 (1997).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <u>Mott<\/u>, the Supreme Court expressed approval of the instruction the trial court had given on the <em>mens rea<\/em>.\u00a0 <u>Id<\/u>. at 197 (\u201ctrial court correctly charged on the <em>mens rea<\/em> element\u201d).\u00a0 That instruction, which is quoted on pages 195-96, essentially requires a showing that the defendant knew he was sending his letter, and that it wasn\u2019t a mistake, an accident, or a misunderstanding.\u00a0 The concept that the defendant knew what he was doing reflects the requirement of \u201cgeneral intent.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The prior version of this instruction, dating back to 2005, did not explicitly include a general intent element because the text of the statute at that time did not refer to any mental element. After the legislature added the word \u201cintentionally\u201d in a 2017 amendment, <em>see<\/em> 2017, No. 44, \u00a7 3, the Committee explicitly incorporated a general intent element to track the statutory language. \u00a0This should solve the problem presented by cases where, for example, a defendant innocently violates an order by inadvertently encountering the other person on the street, and where the order prohibits coming within a certain distance of the other.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The definition of \u201charassing\u201d derives from 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1061(4) (as it existed prior to its amendment in 2015, Adj. Sess., No. 162, \u00a7 5, eff. July 1, 2016), the former statutory definition in the context of stalking.\u00a0 <em>See<\/em> <u>State v. Waters<\/u>, 2013 VT 109, \u00b6 27, 195 Vt. 233 (concluding that \u201cin the absence of any elaboration in the RFA order regarding the intended definition of \u2018harassment\u2019 or the type of conduct prohibited, the most appropriate touchstone for defining the term in the context of a VAPO prosecution is the definition in Vermont\u2019s stalking statute\u201d).\u00a0 This definition is more specific, and requires a greater showing than the broad definition which the Supreme Court criticized in <u>State v. Goyette<\/u>, 166 Vt. 299 (1997). There are alternative definitions of \u201charassing\u201d in <a href=\"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=983\">CR10-418<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=983\">CR10-421<\/a>, and <a href=\"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=1291\">CR27-611<\/a>.\u00a0 The definition of \u201cfollowing\u201d derives from\u00a0<u>State v. Malshuk<\/u>, 2004 VT 54, 177 Vt. 475.<\/p>\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CR22-301.\u00a0 Violation of Abuse Prevention Order, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1030 (10\/12\/20) Reporter&#8217;s Note The instruction contains an element of general intent.\u00a0 The text of the statute, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1030, does not refer to any mental element of specific intent.\u00a0 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=711\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":434,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-711","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/711","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=711"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/711\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1662,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/711\/revisions\/1662"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}