State v. Andrew Stevens, 2016-219

In August 2014 at a family party the complainant met defendant Andrew Stevens; later, as she left, Stevens approached her, embraced her tightly, and said she didn’t want to leave.
Stevens touched the complainant’s bare breast, removed her belt, unbuttoned her pants, and put his hand down her pants outside her underwear.
He pushed her to the ground, got on top of her, tried to remove her pants, and covered her mouth when she resisted; the complainant screamed and later told a cousin she had nearly been raped.
Stevens gave inconsistent statements to police but admitted going to talk to the complainant “to try to have sex with her.”
At the close of the State’s case Stevens moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the State had not shown an encroachment on the complainant’s vaginal area; the motion was denied, he presented no defense, and a jury convicted him of attempted sexual assault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported conviction for attempted sexual assault	Acts (breast touching, unbuttoning pants, hand down pants, trying to remove pants, force) constituted overt acts toward sexual assault	No evidence of intrusion or attempt to penetrate vagina; did not put hand under underwear or unzip pants, so only intent, not commencement	Affirmed: evidence, viewed favorably to State, sufficiently advanced beyond intent to support attempt conviction

State v. Synnott, 178 Vt. 66 (2005) (attempt requires overt act advancing beyond mere intent; facts showing forceful sexual acts supported attempted sexual assault)
State v. Goodhue, 175 Vt. 457 (2003) (similar facts—force, attempts to remove pants/put hand down pants—sufficient for attempted sexual assault)
State v. Boutin, 133 Vt. 531 (1975) (holding an act must be more than remote or preparatory to constitute attempt)
State v. Delisle, 162 Vt. 293 (1994) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal: view evidence in light most favorable to State)