State v. Nathaniel R. Peatman, 185 A.3d 1257

Defendant Nathaniel Peatman was charged after a domestic incident in which he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and then assaulted Officer Karie Tucker during the officers' response; incidents occurred in a continuous span of about six minutes.
Charges included first-degree aggravated domestic assault (willful or reckless), aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer (attempted to cause or caused serious bodily injury), resisting arrest, and impeding a public officer.
Defendant gave notice of a diminished-capacity defense applicable to the specific-intent (willful) elements; the State proceeded on alternative theories for some counts (willful and reckless; attempted and caused serious bodily injury).
At trial the jury asked whether they had to agree on the specific acts or only on the ultimate elements (e.g., caused serious bodily injury); the court responded that jurors need not agree on which specific acts so long as they unanimously agreed that the element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury convicted on all counts; defendant appealed, arguing the jury instructions failed to guarantee unanimity on (1) the mental-state element (willful vs. reckless) for the aggravated domestic assault, and (2) the specific-act basis for the assault-on-officer and resisting-arrest convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions guaranteed unanimity as to mental state (willful vs. reckless) for first-degree aggravated domestic assault	State: jury may consider both mental states as statutory alternatives; unanimity on the ultimate element suffices	Peatman: diminished-capacity instruction applies to willful only; jurors who find diminished capacity could not later consider recklessness, risking nonunanimity	Court: Affirmed — instructions tracked statute, defined both states, applied diminished capacity to willful only; Bolio/Boglioli permit unanimity on the ultimate intent element
Whether jury had to be unanimous as to which specific acts established assault on officer / resisting arrest	State: acts occurred in one continuous transaction; election not required	Peatman: failure to require election on discrete acts risks nonunanimous verdicts	Court: Affirmed — exception to election rule applies because acts were inextricably intertwined in a single, brief transaction; jury properly required to be unanimous on the element, not the particular act

State v. Bolio, 617 A.2d 885 (Vt. 1992) (willful intent is a higher mental state than reckless; alternative mental-state instructions may be read as alternative ways to prove a single element)
State v. Boglioli, 26 A.3d 44 (Vt. 2011) (jury need only be unanimous on the ultimate intent element when alternative mental-state formulations are offered)
State v. Bailey, 475 A.2d 1045 (Vt. 1984) (election not required where multiple acts are so related as to constitute one continuous transaction)
State v. Albarelli, 159 A.3d 627 (Vt. 2016) (discussing the election rule and unanimous-verdict protections where multiple acts could constitute the offense)
Mobbs v. Central Vt. Ry., 583 A.2d 566 (Vt. 1990) (appellant bears burden to show jury charge was both erroneous and prejudicial)