{"id":545,"date":"2017-10-27T11:08:06","date_gmt":"2017-10-27T16:08:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=545"},"modified":"2019-10-21T16:02:12","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T21:02:12","slug":"state-v-cornwell-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/state-v-cornwell-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Cornell (Vt. 2016)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

State v. Cornell, 146 A.3d 895 (Vt. 2016)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case:\u00a0<\/strong>State criminal appeal subsequent to conviction for lewd and lascivious acts on a minor. On appeal, defendant alleged\u00a0certain conditions of probation were invalid \/ overbroad.<\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>Several conditions were overbroad or invalid in that they were not reasonably related to the defendant’s crime, the fact that he was convicted of a sex offense notwithstanding, that court impermissibly delegated authority to probation office, that reasonable suspicion was required for search and seizure of defendant’s computers, and that condition which prohibited computer or internet use without prior approval was a greater deprivation than necessary to protect the public where computer was not used in the underlying offense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n