Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Vermont v. Damien Diaz
Date: 10-31-2025
Case Number: 24-AP-271
Judge: Kerry Ann McDonald-Cady
Court: Superior Court, Bennington County, Criminal Division, Vermont
Plaintiff's Attorney: Bennington County, Vermont, State's Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Bennington Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Bennington, Vermont, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with assault and robbery.
In January 2024, defendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, grand larceny, unlawful mischief, carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon while committing a felony, and assault and robbery. The State subsequently amended the information to add a charge of larceny from the person.
The trial court instructed the jury that, to find defendant guilty of this charge, the State had to prove (1) defendant; (2) attempted to put complainant in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; (3) by using physical menace; and (4) defendant took money or other property which may be the subject of larceny; (5) with the intent to deprive complainant of the money or property permanently. In explaining the physical-menace element, the court provided both the element itself and the State's theory:
The third essential element is that [defendant] made his attempt by using physical menace. Physical menace means a threat by word or act to inflict physical injury upon another person. Here, the State alleges that [defendant] attempted, by physical menace, to place [complainant] in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by running towards him with a knife.
In January 2024, defendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, grand larceny, unlawful mischief, carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon while committing a felony, and assault and robbery. The State subsequently amended the information to add a charge of larceny from the person.
The trial court instructed the jury that, to find defendant guilty of this charge, the State had to prove (1) defendant; (2) attempted to put complainant in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; (3) by using physical menace; and (4) defendant took money or other property which may be the subject of larceny; (5) with the intent to deprive complainant of the money or property permanently. In explaining the physical-menace element, the court provided both the element itself and the State's theory:
The third essential element is that [defendant] made his attempt by using physical menace. Physical menace means a threat by word or act to inflict physical injury upon another person. Here, the State alleges that [defendant] attempted, by physical menace, to place [complainant] in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by running towards him with a knife.
Outcome:
The Defendant was found guilty,
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Vermont v. Damien Diaz?
The outcome was: The Defendant was found guilty, Affirmed
Which court heard State of Vermont v. Damien Diaz?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Bennington County, Criminal Division, Vermont, VT. The presiding judge was Kerry Ann McDonald-Cady.
Who were the attorneys in State of Vermont v. Damien Diaz?
Plaintiff's attorney: Bennington County, Vermont, State's Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Bennington Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Vermont v. Damien Diaz decided?
This case was decided on October 31, 2025.