State v. Richard J. Chamberlin, 24-AP-328

Background

V.E. disclosed at age seventeen that defendant, their father, had inappropriately touched them multiple times when they were younger, leading to criminal charges. 1
The amended information charged defendant with six felony counts based on conduct in Vernon, Brattleboro, and Greenfield, Massachusetts, and Count One was later dismissed. 2
Before trial, the court admitted evidence of defendant's uncharged Greenfield conduct and allowed expert testimony about delayed reporting and trauma-related memory. 3
At trial, V.E. testified to digital penetration in Vernon and Greenfield and to a shower incident in Brattleboro, plus other sexualized conduct in Brattleboro and Greenfield. 4
The jury convicted defendant on Counts Two through Five, and defendant moved for acquittal on Count Three and for a new trial on several grounds. 5
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, while a dissent would have reversed Count Three for insufficient evidence and plain error from the lack of a limiting instruction. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on Count Three 7	Vermont said circumstantial evidence and expert testimony proved Brattleboro digital penetration.	Chamberlin said V.E. could not recall any sexual act in Brattleboro.	Sufficient evidence supported Count Three. 8
Admission of uncharged Greenfield acts 9	Vermont said the acts showed context, pattern, and delayed reporting.	Chamberlin said the evidence was improper propensity proof and unfairly prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion under Rules 404(b) and 403. 10
Limiting instruction on uncharged acts 11	Vermont said no plain error occurred without a requested instruction.	Chamberlin said the jury needed a limiting instruction and its absence was prejudicial.	No plain error. 12
Admission of expert testimony on delayed reporting 13	Vermont said the social worker was qualified and her testimony was reliable and relevant.	Chamberlin said she lacked proper expertise and improperly vouched for credibility.	No abuse of discretion. 14
Prosecutor's closing argument 15	Vermont said the comments fairly summarized evidence and inferences.	Chamberlin said the prosecutor vouched, shifted burden, and appealed to sympathy.	No plain error. 16

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hale, 214 Vt. 296 (Vt. 2021) (de novo review of denial of judgment of acquittal, viewing evidence in light most favorable to State 17)
State v. Vaillancourt, 336 A.3d 439 (Vt. 2025) (same standard for sufficiency review 18)
State v. Cameron, 163 A.3d 545 (Vt. 2016) (jury is best positioned to weigh facts in close cases 19)
State v. Durenleau, 652 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1994) (circumstantial evidence may prove guilt, but not by speculation 20)
State v. Robitille, 213 A.3d 437 (Vt. 2019) (courts do not second-guess jury interpretations of evidence 21)
State v. Menize, 308 A.3d 507 (Vt. 2023) (Rule 404 allows uncharged sexual-abuse evidence to show pattern and context 22)
State v. Forbes, 640 A.2d 13 (Vt. 1993) (uncharged incest evidence may preserve credibility of victim's story 23)
State v. Brown, 15 A.3d 107 (Vt. 2010) (uncharged conduct admissible to explain delayed disclosure 24)
State v. Anderson, 868 A.2d 716 (Vt. 2005) (subsequent acts may be admissible to show pattern and context 25)
State v. Lipka, 817 A.2d 27 (Vt. 2002) (evidentiary rulings reversed only for abuse of discretion affecting substantial rights 26)
State v. McAllister, 202 A.3d 989 (Vt. 2018) (two-step Rule 404(b) relevance and prejudice analysis 27)
State v. Winter, 648 A.2d 624 (Vt. 1994) (State must precisely identify the relevance of uncharged misconduct evidence 28)
State v. Sullivan, 167 A.3d 876 (Vt. 2017) (expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion under Daubert-based Rule 702 29)
State v. Hazelton, 987 A.2d 915 (Vt. 2009) (expert testimony cannot directly vouch for complainant's credibility 30)
State v. Hicks, 535 A.2d 776 (Vt. 1987) (social workers may testify about child sexual abuse victim behavior 31)
State v. Ayers, 535 A.2d 330 (Vt. 1987) (prosecutorial personal belief in witness credibility is plain error 32)
State v. Riva, 481 A.2d 1060 (Vt. 1984) (counsel may comment on evidence and permissible inferences 33)
State v. Martel, 670 A.2d 845 (Vt. 1995) (plain-error analysis considers whole argument and curative instructions 34)
State v. Bubar, 505 A.2d 1197 (Vt. 1985) (inflammatory sympathy appeals by prosecutor are improper 35)
State v. Corliss, 539 A.2d 557 (Vt. 1987) (failure to give limiting instruction on similar uncharged act required reversal 36)
State v. Holcomb, 590 A.2d 894 (Vt. 1991) (no plain error absent request or objection to limiting instruction 37)
State v. Waters, 87 A.3d 512 (Vt. 2013) (plain-error review of jury instructions and four-part plain-error test 38)
State v. Rehkop, 908 A.2d 488 (Vt. 2006) (plain error requires improper argument impairing fair trial 39)