State v. Madigan, 199 Vt. 211

Background

Defendant Charles Madigan was convicted by a jury of three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child based solely on the alleged victim A.R.’s testimony describing multiple incidents while she lived in defendant’s home.
A.R. lived with Madigan and his daughter as a teenager and described three episodes of sexual contact that she only disclosed to friends years later; a lock was later installed on her bedroom door.
At trial the State elicited testimony from two witnesses (defendant’s ex‑wife and A.R.’s friend J.H.) that A.R. had a reputation for truthfulness.
The State also asked J.H. to recount A.R.’s out‑of‑court statements that she had been sexually abused and that she kept her door locked because she was afraid.
In rebuttal closing the prosecutor urged the jury to imagine A.R. as “poor” and “maybe hungry,” language for which defendant objected and the court overruled.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding the reputation testimony and the hearsay statement improperly admitted and the prosecutor’s closing argument improper; errors were not harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of witnesses’ testimony about A.R.’s reputation for truthfulness (V.R.E. 608(a))	The testimony was proper rehabilitation because defense attacked A.R.’s credibility through motive, inconsistencies, and memory lapses	Defense did not mount a general attack on A.R.’s character for truthfulness; cross aimed at specific inconsistencies, motive, and memory (impeachment), not general dishonesty	Admission of reputation testimony was error: defendant’s impeachment was routine contradiction/motive evidence, not an attack on general truthfulness, so rehabilitation was improper
Admission of J.H.’s repetition of A.R.’s accusations as hearsay	State invoked V.R.E. 803(3) (state of mind) or the “fresh‑complaint” doctrine to admit the statements	Statements were classic hearsay offered to prove the abuse (backward‑looking memory/belief), not a present state of mind; fresh‑complaint is not an independent exception	Admission of J.H.’s recounting of A.R.’s accusations was inadmissible hearsay; 803(3) inapplicable and Court rejects fresh‑complaint as freestanding doctrine
Prosecutor’s rebuttal closing: appeals to sympathy (characterization of A.R. as “poor” and “maybe hungry”)	State argued comments were based on evidence and reasonably explained why A.R. stayed with defendant	Defense argued argument injected unsupported, inflammatory facts and appealed to juror sympathy	Prosecutor’s statements exceeded permissible argument and were improper (invited sympathy via speculation)
Prejudice / Harmless‑error analysis	State contended errors were harmless because evidence against defendant was strong	Defense argued combined errors undermined the credibility contest where A.R.’s testimony was dispositive	Errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: A.R. was the sole witness to offenses and vouching plus hearsay and improper argument could have tipped the scales; conviction reversed

Key Cases Cited

Stevenson v. Gunning’s Estate, 25 A. 697 (Vt. 1892) (historical discussion on inadmissibility of reputation evidence absent attack)
United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1991) (distinguishing attacks on bias from attacks on general truthfulness)
State v. Carr, 725 P.2d 1287 (Or. 1989) (holding motive to lie is not necessarily an attack on general truthfulness)
State v. Eugenio, 579 N.W.2d 642 (Wis. 1998) (prior inconsistent statements and motive to lie do not automatically imply general untruthfulness)
United States v. Lukashov, 694 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2012) (contrasting cases where entire strategy depicted witness as a liar generally)
Pierson v. Brooks, 768 P.2d 792 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989) (warning that exception cannot swallow rule)
State v. Verrinder, 637 A.2d 1382 (Vt. 1993) (framework for Rule 803(3) admissibility)
United States v. Cohen, 631 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir. 1980) (state‑of‑mind exception does not permit backward‑looking statements explaining the state of mind)
State v. Blair, 583 A.2d 591 (Vt. 1990) (in credibility contests, third‑party vouching for victim may be outcome‑determinative)