## Facts

- G.T. was a 14-year-old boy, and M.N. was a 12-year-old girl.
- One night, G.T. and M.N. were at M.N.’s house watching television.
- According to M.N., G.T. began kissing her and then had sexual intercourse with her.
- M.N. told G.T. that it hurt, but he did not stop.
- M.N.’s mother entered the room during the intercourse, interrupted it, and told G.T. to leave the house.
- M.N. began crying and told her mother what had happened.
- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging that G.T. committed a delinquent act based on conduct that would constitute sexual assault under 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(3) if committed by an adult.
- The family court adjudicated G.T. a delinquent child under § 3252(a)(3).
- G.T. appealed, arguing that he could not be charged under § 3252(a)(3) because he was 14 and therefore within the age group the statute protects.

## Issues

1. Whether 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(3), a sexual-assault provision protecting persons under the age of consent, applies when the alleged actor is also under the age of consent.
2. Whether the statute should be read to avoid treating members of the protected class as offenders absent clear legislative direction.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the delinquency adjudication and remanded.
- The court held that § 3252(a)(3) does not apply where the alleged perpetrator is also a “victim” under the age of consent within the meaning of the statute.
- The court declined to apply a strictly literal reading that would permit prosecution of a juvenile who falls inside the group the statute was written to protect.
- The court reasoned that reading § 3252(a)(3) to reach juvenile-on-juvenile conduct within the protected age range would conflict with the statute’s protective function and could lead to inconsistent outcomes (including reciprocal liability between similarly situated minors).

## Legal Principles

- Statutory-rape/age-of-consent provisions are commonly written to protect a defined class of minors presumed unable, as a matter of law, to consent in the way the statute requires.
- Statutory text must be read in context, including the statute’s function and structure; a reading that converts protected minors into offenders requires clear legislative language.
- When a criminal statute is reasonably susceptible to competing readings, courts avoid interpretations that expand criminal liability beyond what the legislature clearly set out.
- In juvenile delinquency proceedings based on an adult criminal statute, the scope of the predicate criminal statute remains a legal question of statutory meaning, and ambiguity is resolved against extending punishment to conduct the legislature did not plainly cover.
- If the legislature intends to criminalize sexual activity between minors who are both under the age of consent (including situations involving age differences), it must do so expressly.

## Conclusion

In *In re G.T.*, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(3) was aimed at protecting minors under the age of consent, not at imposing delinquency liability on a juvenile who is himself within that protected age group. Because the statute did not clearly authorize applying that subsection to a 14-year-old alleged actor, the court reversed the adjudication and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation.


In re G.T., 758 A.2d 301 (2000)