State v. Hammond, 54 A.3d 151

Defendant Hammond, living in Colchester with his wife, daughter, and two stepdaughters,Massaged complainant, an 18-year-old high school student, in October 2008.
During the massage, Hammond penetrated complainant’s vagina with one or two fingers for about two minutes.
Complainant initially did not disclose full details; over months she gradually reported incidents to family, friends, and authorities.
Hammond was charged in June 2009 with one count of sexual assault and later another count of lewd and lascivious conduct; after a hung jury, he was retried and convicted on both counts.
On appeal, Hammond challenged sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, Rape Shield Act application, and admission of non-expert and expert anecdotal testimony about delayed reporting; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for sexual assault and lewd conduct	Hammond argues the complainant’s inconsistent testimony undermines credibility.	Hammond contends the evidence fails to prove nonconsensual contact and actual intrusion.	Evidence sufficient to support convictions.
Jury instruction on sexual act definitions and anal penetration	State argues the instruction properly defined ‘genital opening’ and potential alternatives.	Hammond claims the instruction could wrongly allow conviction on anal insertion.	No plain error; instructions viewed as a whole did not mislead the jury.
Rape Shield Act and lack of sexual experience testimony	State asserts redirect questioning about lack of sexual experience was proper to rebut defense tactics.	Act bars prior sexual conduct; absence of sexual experience should be excluded.	Rape Shield did not render testimony improper; use within trial discretion, not plain error.
Admissibility of delayed reporting testimony (non-expert and expert)	Testimony reflected common delayed reporting in sexual assaults and aided understanding.	Opinion testimony from non-experts about delayed reporting is improper.	No plain error; testimony admissible under Rule 702 as specialized knowledge; not prejudicial.

State v. Boglioli, 2011 VT 60 (Vt. 2011) (credibility questions for jury; review limited to sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Eaton, 134 Vt. 205 (Vt. 1976) (jury to weigh credibility; burden on jury to determine guilt)
State v. Brown, 153 Vt. 263 (Vt. 1989) (lack of consent instruction analysis for sexual assault)
State v. Giroux, 151 Vt. 361 (Vt. 1989) (mens rea issue not reached where consent not at trial)
State v. Patnaude, 140 Vt. 361 (Vt. 1981) (rape shield exceptions; illogic of proving present conduct by past acts)