State v. Brandt, 59 A.3d 141

Defendant Jeffrey Brandt, married to the complainant, allegedly assaulted her on August 7–8, 2009, during disputes over using a jointly owned GMC Jimmy.
The complainant was injured, sought help at A&B Beverage, and police were called; a witness observed a bump on her head.
Brandt was charged on November 6, 2009, with two counts of domestic assault and one count of driving with a suspended license (DLS).
A jury convicted Brandt on all three counts after trial; Brandt appeals arguing severance, excited-utterance instruction, and prosecutorial conduct.
The trial court denied severance; the defense did not separately challenge the DLS severance on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two assaults were properly joined or should have been severed	Brandt claims Rule 14(b)(1)(A) grants an absolute right to severance when joined solely for similar character.	Joinder as a series of connected acts is proper under Rule 8(a)(2) and Rule 14(b)(1)(B).	Joinder as a series of acts was proper; no severance required.
Whether the excited utterance instruction was improper	Instruction singled out excited utterances and risked undue weight to credibility.	Instruction was appropriate to explain admissibility and weighability of excited utterances.	Instruction was improper to single out evidence but harmless; credibility remained for the jury.
Whether the prosecutor's closing arguments were improper	Arguments were inflammatory and prejudicial to Brandt.	No plain error; arguments were within the bounds of fair comment on evidence.	No reversible plain error; conviction affirmed.

State v. Amidon, 2008 VT 122 (2008) (rules governing interpretation of joinder are questions of law)
State v. Beshaw, 136 Vt. 311 (1978) (joined offenses derive from a single happening in close time/space)
State v. Carter, 156 Vt. 437 (1991) (offenses joined as random events of similar character)
State v. Johnson, 158 Vt. 344 (1992) (normally unrelated crimes; different times, locations, witnesses)
State v. Williams, 2010 VT 77 (2010) (other domestic-violence acts may be admitted to explain relationships)
State v. Muscari, 174 Vt. 101 (2002) (excited utterance instruction is assessable for accuracy)
State v. Kinney, 2011 VT 74 (2011) (prosecutor's statements about lies evaluated under plain-error framework)
Ulm v. Ford Motor Co., 170 Vt. 281 (2000) (limits and safeguards on instructing jury about evidence admissibility)