State v. Hinchliffe

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed William J. Hinchliffe’s conviction for stalking under 13 V.S.A. § 1062. The court held that evidence of the complainant’s knowledge of Hinchliffe’s prior assaultive conduct was properly admitted to establish whether a reasonable person in her circumstances would fear bodily injury. The court also upheld the interpretation of Vermont’s stalking statute and rejected Hinchliffe’s sufficiency and procedural challenges.

Holdings

1. A stalking conviction does not require proof of a direct verbal threat or proof that the victim actually feared bodily harm; the relevant statutory fear inquiry is objective and asks whether the defendant's conduct would cause a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances to fear bodily injury or death.
2. The State's notice, provided seven days before trial and identifying its intent to introduce the complainant's awareness of defendant's prior simple-assault conviction, sufficiently notified defendant of the proposed evidence under Rule 26(c).
3. Evidence that the complainant knew of defendant's prior assaultive conduct toward a former girlfriend was admissible under Rule 404(b) because it was relevant to whether a reasonable person in the complainant's circumstances would fear bodily injury, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403.
4. Defendant waived his constitutional challenges to the stalking statute and his challenge to the jury instructions by failing to raise them with specificity and clarity below and by failing to object to the instructions before the jury retired.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's stalking conviction when defendant made no direct threat and the complainant did not consistently express fear of physical harm.
2. Whether the State provided adequate notice under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 26(c) of its intent to introduce evidence concerning defendant's prior assaultive conduct.
3. Whether evidence of the complainant's knowledge of defendant's prior assault on a third party was admissible under Vermont Rule of Evidence 404(b) and not excludable under Rule 403.
4. Whether defendant preserved his constitutional challenges to the stalking statute and his challenge to the jury instructions.

Disposition

affirmed