State v. FAHAM, 21 A.3d 701

Faham was charged with attempted sexual assault under 13 V.S.A. § 9 and § 3252(a)(1) after allegedly lying on top of the complainant and threatening to kill her if she did not have sex.
Complainant described March 6, 2008 events: she was driven to an isolated Charlotte location, overheard threats, and jumped from the truck when the situation escalated.
Police found physical evidence (handcuff key, button) and defendant’s inconsistent statements; complainant sought help from a nearby resident and police.
Defendant testified at trial with a different version, claiming consensual activity occurred in a prior encounter and asserting coercive conduct did not amount to the charged offense.
After trial, defendant moved for acquittal and for a new trial; the jury convicted him of attempted sexual assault and he was sentenced to 5–12 years.
On appeal, the court affirmed, addressing preservation of sufficiency challenge and the exclusion of complainant’s prior drug-use evidence as a potentially admissible Defense proffer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State’s evidence was sufficient to convict on attempted sexual assault.	Faham argued insufficiency of evidence.	Insufficient evidence established the attempt element.	Not preserved for review; no ruling on sufficiency.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of complainant’s prior drug use under Rule 404(b)/406.	Evidence relevant to motive/intent; defense access to full defense.	Exclusion violated rights to present a complete defense and confrontation.	No reversible error; exclusion not plain error; affirmed.

State v. Crannell, 170 Vt. 387 (2000) (preservation requirement for sufficiency challenges under Rule 29(a) emphasized)
State v. Brillon, 183 Vt. 475 (2008) (overruled related preservation language in other contexts)
State v. Bressette, 136 Vt. 315 (1978) (preservation requirements for sufficiency challenges)
State v. Memoli, 2011 VT 15 (2011) (evidentiary exclusion as critical to defense; explicit proffer matters)
In re A.B., 170 Vt. 535 (1999) (right to present a defense; evidentiary balance under Rule 403)
State v. Corliss, 168 Vt. 333 (1998) (confrontation rights and trial court discretion under Rule 403)
Forty, 2009 VT 118 (2009) (constitutional confrontation considerations in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Hazelton, 2006 VT 121 (2006) (credibility and materiality considerations when corroboration exists)
State v. Ringler, 153 Vt. 375 (1989) (sufficiency preservation requirements; proffer standards)
State v. Brown, 2010 VT 103 (2010) (plain error standard; substantial rights analysis)
State v. Koons, 2011 VT 22 (2011) (plain error framework guidance)