State v. Stokes, 83 A.3d 567

Defendant John C. Stokes was convicted by a jury of unlawful trespass under 13 V.S.A. § 3705 for remaining in his ex-girlfriend’s car during a domestic incident.
The incident stemmed from a custody dispute involving their child, with the ex-girlfriend driving, stopping, and repeatedly asking him to leave the car.
At sentencing, the court imposed probation with a special condition to complete a Domestic Abuse Education Program (DAEP), with potential imposition of the underlying sentence if DAEP was not completed.
Defendant appealed, sought stays pending appeal, and the court denied stays; a probation-violation complaint later alleged noncompliance with the DAEP condition.
A merits hearing found that defendant would not admit to the offense and thus could not participate in DAEP, leading the court to revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence (stayed pending appeal).
On appeal, defendant challenged (1) the sufficiency of the trespass conviction and (2) the propriety of the DAEP condition and related probation-violation ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the car interior constitutes a "place" under § 3705	Stokes argues car interiors are not covered by § 3705.	Stokes contends the statute covers only land, buildings, or similar places.	Yes, the car interior is a "place" under § 3705.
Whether ordering DAEP as a probation condition is reasonably related to the offense	DAEP addresses power/control dynamics in domestic contexts.	DAEP is unrelated to the offense since it was nonviolent.	DAEP reasonably related to protecting the public and rehabilitating the offender.
Whether the court properly denied modification or stay pending appeal regarding DAEP	Modification/stay should reflect innocence or dispute about guilt.	DAEP could be imposed regardless of defendant’s innocence; stay denied was proper.	Trial court acted within its discretion; stays not warranted pending appeal.
Whether probation violation finding was supported by the evidence	Non-admission to the offense violated DAEP requirements.	Defendant refused to admit guilt, preventing DAEP participation.	Evidence supported that defendant violated probation by failing to participate in DAEP.

State v. Foster, 139 Vt. 18 (1980) (application of trespass statute to mobile home; places not limited to buildings)
State v. Therrien, 2011 VT 120 (2011) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
State v. Rivers, 2005 VT 65 (2005) (probation conditions must relate to preventing recidivism and aiding rehabilitation)
State v. Savo, 141 Vt. 203 (1982) (deference to trial court on discretionary probation rulings)
State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389 (1996) (mixed question of fact and law in probation violations; standard of review)