70 A.3d 971
Vt.2013Background
- Defendant Snow was charged with sexual assault under 13 V.S.A. § 3252 related to an incident on December 31, 2009 following a New Year’s Eve party.
- Victim testified she woke with defendant’s penis inside her and left the room shouting in pain; she was asleep/unconscious at the time of the act.
- Snow testified that they engaged in mutual fondling initiated by the victim and that no intercourse occurred.
- The trial court instructed the jury that compulsion could be shown by lack of consent, including when the victim is asleep or unconscious, without requiring actual force.
- During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification of ‘compel,’ and the court provided a Hazelton-derived instruction stating that compulsion can be satisfied by lack of consent alone.
- Snow was convicted, and post-trial motions for a new trial were denied; he appeals challenging the jury instruction on compulsion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction properly stated compulsion under § 3252 | Snow argues Hazelton language improperly framed compulsion | Snow contends the instruction mischaracterized the law and burden | Instruction accurately stated the law and did not misstate elements off the charge |
| Whether the instruction eliminated a charged element and prejudiced Snow | Snow alleges the court reduced the State’s burden by downplaying compulsion | Snow contends the instruction altered the defense strategy | Instruction did not eliminate an element or prejudice Snow; testimony support remained adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rideout, 182 Vt. 113 (2007 VT 59A) (jury instruction governing fairness and guidance in applying law)
- State v. Nash, 144 Vt. 427 (1984) (compulsion as a method of committing the single offense of sexual assault)
- Hazelton, 181 Vt. 118 (2006 VT 121) (language used to describe compulsion as lack of consent sufficing)
- State v. Desautels, 180 Vt. 189 (2006 VT 84) (definition of consent under 13 V.S.A. § 3251(3))
- State v. Aiken, 177 Vt. 566 (2004 VT 96) (information’s scope vs. defense impact; sufficiency of notice to defendant)