State v. Fellows, 76 A.3d 608

S.M. is defendant Frank Fellows’ fourteen-year-old daughter; S.M.’s mother was fourteen when she conceived S.M.; they never married and did not live together at the time of the incident, with S.M. spending half the time with each parent.
On the night of April 17, 2009, S.M. slept with Fellows in a camper; she awoke to Fellows’ hand inside her shirt on her stomach, then touching her breasts and moving toward her pants.
Fellows allegedly pulled her onto her back, touched her vaginal area, inserted a finger, and later massaged her breasts until morning.
S.M. pretended to be asleep, later grabbed her clothes and was driven to her mother’s house; she texted a friend, KD, describing what happened and sought help to get away.
Afterward, Fellows took S.M. to KD’s house; S.M. cried, KD relayed information to S.M.’s sister and mother, and S.M. was taken to the hospital and then to Dartmouth the next day for examination; the Department for Children and Families subsequently investigated.
At trial, Fellows was convicted of sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct; the defense presented testimony from Fellows’ two sisters; the State presented multiple witnesses and an audio recording of Fellows’ interview.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cross-examining sisters about relationship with mother	Fellows’ sisters’ testimony implied a character trait; cross-examination was proper to test credibility.	Cross-examination exceeded Rule 405 by seeking specific past conduct about minor relationships, improper under 404(a).	No reversible error; cross-examination within bounds and closing argument was not plainly erroneous.
Admission of KD’s conversations with S.M. (fresh complaint/excited utterance)	Conversations were admissible under fresh complaint or excited utterance exceptions and not duplicative.	Admission violated hearsay rules and prejudiced defendant.	Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. McCarthy, 156 Vt. 148 (1991) (cross-exam of character witnesses; limits under 404(a))
State v. Lettieri, 149 Vt. 340 (1988) (preservation of objections and plain error standard)
State v. Mumley, 2009 VT 48 (2009) (harmless-error analysis framework)
State v. Martel, 164 Vt. 501 (1995) (limiting appellate review of closing argument error)
State v. Lemay, 2006 VT 76 (2006) (fresh complaint/excited utterance framework in Vermont)
State v. Simmons, 2011 VT 69 (2011) (plain-error review and harmless-error standard)