Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Jeffory Hammond’s convictions for sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct. The court held that the evidence was sufficient, the unpreserved challenges to the jury instructions did not constitute plain error, admission of testimony concerning the complainant’s sexual inexperience did not violate the Rape Shield Act, and testimony concerning delayed or incomplete reporting of sexual abuse was not plainly erroneous.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions despite inconsistencies and alleged incredibility in the complainant's testimony.
- Whether Hammond preserved a claim for a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence.
- Whether the jury instructions improperly permitted conviction based on anal rather than vaginal penetration.
- Whether the court committed plain error by failing to instruct that Hammond had to know the complainant did not consent.
- Whether admission of testimony about the complainant's lack of prior sexual experience violated Vermont's Rape Shield statute.
- Whether testimony from lay and expert witnesses concerning delayed and incomplete reporting by sexual-assault victims was improperly admitted.
Holdings
- The complainant's testimony, if credited by the jury, was sufficient to support convictions for sexual assault by nonconsensual digital penetration and lewd and lascivious conduct.
- Hammond's claim that he was entitled to a new trial because the evidence was insufficient was not preserved because his post-verdict new-trial motion did not raise that ground.
- The jury instructions, considered as a whole, were not misleading and did not constitute plain error because they made clear that the charged sexual assault required penetration of the complainant's vaginal opening, not her anal opening.
- The failure to instruct that Hammond had to know the complainant did not consent was not plain error on the facts of this case.
- The admission of testimony that the complainant had never previously been penetrated by someone's fingers did not violate the Rape Shield statute because the testimony was elicited to respond to an attack on her explanation for delayed disclosure, not to prove sexual assault by reference to sexual history.
- Admission of testimony from the counselor, police witnesses, and clinical psychologist about delayed or piecemeal reporting was not plain error.
Key quotations
“Reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, the test is whether “the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State and excluding any modifying evidence, fairly and reasonably tends to convince a reasonable trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”” (¶ 14)
“There is no error if the jury charge as a whole conveys the true spirit and doctrine of the law, and there is no fair ground to say the jury has been misled by it.” (¶ 20)
“Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where the failure to recognize it would result in a miscarriage of justice or where the error is so grave and serious that it strikes at the heart of defendant’s constitutional rights.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
Hammond lived with his wife, daughter, and two stepdaughters, including the eighteen-year-old complainant. While alone with the complainant, he offered to massage her legs, moved his hands under her shorts, touched her lower buttocks and inner thigh, and digitally penetrated her vagina. The complainant initially made incomplete and inconsistent disclosures over the following months, later reported the incident to her mother and authorities, and ultimately testified to the penetration. Hammond denied vaginal penetration and was convicted after retrial.
Procedural history
Hammond was charged with sexual assault and later with lewd and lascivious conduct. His first trial ended in a hung jury; after retrial, he was convicted on both counts. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division denied his motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.