State v. Groce, 111 A.3d 1273

Defendant Groce was convicted of sexual assault under 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(1) after a jury trial in Rutland Superior Court in May 2012.
Complainant, who was intoxicated from consuming about six drinks, testified to an incident at a party in July 2008 where she awoke to an unknown person performing oral sex, later identifying Groce.
Barrett and Poljacik testified about the events surrounding complainant’s behavior, the room arrangements, and complainant’s emotional state following the incident.
Poljacik testified about Cook’s telephone conversation that suggested Cook thought Groce could have committed the assault, which defense counsel argued opened the door for additional evidence.
The State elicited Cook’s statements on redirect, asserting that Cook believed Groce could have committed the assault, which Groce objected to as hearsay; the court admitted the testimony under an open-door theory.
The court ultimately admitted the statements, and the jury returned a guilty verdict after lengthy deliberations; Groce timely appealed asserting evidentiary error, trial scheduling delay, and improper closing arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by admitting Poljacik’s redirect testimony about Cook’s statements	Groce: admission opened the door improperly and was hearsay.	Groce: open-door doctrine improperly used; statements were not necessary to complete the picture.	Error not harmless; reversal and remand for new trial
Whether the six-day delay between jury selection and trial without a waiver violated Groce’s rights	State: scheduling delay without waiver was permissible; harmless procedural issue.	Groce: delay without waiver prejudiced defense.	Not reached
Whether the State’s closing arguments containing inflammatory language regarding complainant’s character constituted plain error	State: no error; closing remarks within permissible scope.	Groce: language was improper and prejudicial.	Not reached

State v. Lipka, 174 Vt. 377 (Vt. 2002) (harmless-error/to assess credibility alongside error in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Malshuk, 177 Vt. 475 (2004 VT 54) (open-door doctrine; curative admissibility to remove prejudice)
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40 (1988) (open-door rationale; admissibility to complete the picture)
State v. Percy, 146 Vt. 475 (1986) (open-door limited to preventing unfair prejudice)
State v. Crannell, 170 Vt. 387 (2000) (limits on rebuttal evidence and open-door use)
State v. Batchelor, 135 Vt. 366 (1977) (open-door not to be used for broad ‘over-kill’ evidence)