{"id":735,"date":"2012-08-03T19:04:33","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T19:04:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=735"},"modified":"2026-07-13T04:01:16","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T04:01:16","slug":"unlawful-trespass","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=735","title":{"rendered":"Unlawful Trespass"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li>CR28-851.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-851.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Land<\/a>\u00a0(actual communication), 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(a)(1)(A) (01\/31\/23)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-856.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-856.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Land<\/a> (signs or placards), 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(a)(1)(B) (01\/31\/23)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-858.\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-858.htm\">Motor Vehicle<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(c) (03\/09\/26)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-861.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-861.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Locked Building<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(d) (07\/12\/26)<\/li>\n<li>CR28-871.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS28-871.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Dwelling House<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(e) (03\/03\/06)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Reporter&#8217;s Note<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>CR28-851, -856 \u2013 Unlawful Trespass (Land).\u00a0 <\/strong>The third essential element\u2014the license element\u2014does not contain an implied notice requirement. <em>See<\/em> <u>State v. Richards<\/u>, 2021 VT 40, \u00b6 26, 215 Vt. 1 (affirming trial court\u2019s jury instructions).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The fourth essential element requires proof that the defendant had received notice against trespass. The State can prove notice by \u201cactual communication,\u201d which is a \u201csubjective standard.\u201d\u00a0<u>State v. MacFarland<\/u>, 2021 VT 87, \u00b6 34, 216 Vt. 126 (concluding that trial court \u201cshould have considered defendant\u2019s actual subjective experience of the encounter with the bouncer; it is not enough to conclude that defendant \u2018refused\u2019 to leave the bar without explaining, to some extent, how that related to her state of mind at the time\u201d). Alternatively, \u201c[t]he statute allows notice to be proven with objective evidence of reasonable notice through signage and without showing that a defendant subjectively saw and understood the signs.\u201d\u00a0<u>State v. Pixley<\/u>, 2018 VT 110, \u00b6 13, 208 Vt. 529. The instructions given in\u00a0<u>Pixley<\/u>\u00a0\u201cproperly directed the jury that it could find defendant received notice \u2018if the owner, or the owner\u2019s agent posted signs or placards that were designated and situated in a manner that provided reasonable notice,\u2019\u201d and thus \u201caccurately reflected the notice element . . . .\u201d\u00a0<u>Id<\/u>. \u00b6 16.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>CR28-861 \u2013 Locked Building.<\/strong>\u00a0 The model instruction strictly tracks the statutory language. There are multiple brackets in the second and third elements. The bracketed language \u201c[building other than a residence]\u201d in the second element goes with \u201c[the access of the building was normally locked, whether or not the access was actually locked]\u201d in the third element. The bracketed language \u201c[residence]\u201d in the second element goes with \u201c[(Def)_______________ did so in violation of an order of any court of competent jurisdiction in this State]\u201d in the third element.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Note that the statutory language is silent as to any knowledge or license element. A prior version of \u00a7\u00a03705(d) (then designated as \u00a7\u00a03705(c)) \u201ccontained a knowledge element, including the phrase \u2018knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so.\u2019 But in 1982, the Legislature amended the statute to remove this exact language.\u201d <u>State v. Richards<\/u>, 2021 VT 40, \u00b6 16, 215 Vt. 1. Our Supreme Court explained that \u201cthis amendment underscores our conclusion that the Legislature made a deliberate choice to include a knowledge element in some subsections of the statute and omit this element in others.\u201d <u>Id<\/u>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The statutory language is also unclear whether the \u201ccourt order\u201d element applies to \u201clocked buildings other than residence\u201d in addition to residences. The Supreme Court\u2019s discussion in <u>Richards<\/u> suggests that it does not, however: \u201cSection 3705(c) prohibits trespass to \u2018a building other than a residence, whose access is normally locked\u2019 or \u2018a residence in violation of an order of any court.\u2019\u201d <u>Richards<\/u>, 2021 VT 40, \u00b6 16 (quoting 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(c)). Further clarification and guidance is needed from the legislature and the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>CR28-871 \u2013 Unlawful Trespass (Dwelling House).<\/strong> The unlawful trespass statute, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7\u00a03705(d), derives from the Model Penal Code.\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Fanger<\/span>, 164 Vt. 48, 52 (1995) (citing <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Kreth<\/span>, 150 Vt. 406, 409 (1988); Model Penal Code \u00a7 221.2(1)). The third essential element requires proof of the defendant\u2019s subjective knowledge that he or she was neither licensed nor privileged to do so.\u00a0This element may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence.\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Cram<\/span>, 2008 VT 55, \u00b6\u00b6 7\u201313, 184 Vt. 531 (mem.).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CR28-851.\u00a0 Land\u00a0(actual communication), 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(a)(1)(A) (01\/31\/23) CR28-856.\u00a0 Land (signs or placards), 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(a)(1)(B) (01\/31\/23) CR28-858.\u00a0 Motor Vehicle, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(c) (03\/09\/26) CR28-861.\u00a0 Locked Building, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 3705(d) (07\/12\/26) CR28-871.\u00a0 Dwelling House, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=735\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":460,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-735","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/735","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=735"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/735\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1863,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/735\/revisions\/1863"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}