Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Kai A. Freeman’s convictions for ten offenses involving sexual acts or attempted exchanges of marijuana for sexual acts with several minors. The court held that the trial court properly denied severance of the charges because the offenses were part of a single scheme or plan and that evidence concerning one victim would have been admissible under Vermont Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for repeated sexual assault and luring involving A.H.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to sever the charges involving A.M. from the charges involving the other alleged victims.
- Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction for repeated sexual assault as part of a common scheme or plan involving A.H.
- Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction for knowingly soliciting, luring, or enticing, or attempting to solicit, lure, or entice, A.H. to engage in a sexual act.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance because the offenses were connected as parts of a single scheme or plan, and Freeman failed to show substantial prejudice requiring separate trials under V.R.Cr.P. 14(b)(1)(B).
- The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Freeman engaged in repeated sexual acts with A.H. while she was under sixteen and that the acts were part of a common scheme or plan.
- The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Freeman knowingly solicited, lured, or enticed, or attempted to solicit, lure, or entice, A.H. to engage in a sexual act.
Key quotations
“In order to show that severance was appropriate, a defendant must demonstrate that prejudice will occur if the offenses are joined.” (¶ 13)
“Our standard of review “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.”” (¶ 20)
Factual background
Freeman was accused of engaging in a repeated scheme in which he offered marijuana to adolescent girls in exchange for oral sex or attempted sexual acts. The alleged conduct involved victims ranging in age from thirteen to sixteen who lived in the same town or belonged to overlapping peer groups, and several victims connected Freeman through one another. The evidence concerning victim A.M. involved a sixteen-year-old and occurred in the spring of 2013, while the incidents involving the other victims occurred during the summer and fall of 2013. Testimony from A.H. and other victims described repeated, similar exchanges and supported the two challenged convictions.
Procedural history
The State charged Freeman with eleven offenses arising from alleged exchanges of marijuana for sexual acts involving several minors. After a jury trial, he was convicted of ten counts and acquitted of one count of nonconsensual sexual assault involving A.M. The trial court denied Freeman's pretrial, renewed, and post-conviction motions to sever, and he appealed.