Case Title: State v. Anderson

Citation: 178 Vt. 467, 2005 VT 17, 868 A.2d 716

Docket Number: 2003-553

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Anderson (2003-553); 178 Vt. 467; 868 A.2d 716

2005 VT 17

[Filed 27-Jan-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 17

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-553

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2004

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Orange Circuit
  James A. Anderson	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 466-10-00 OeCr

                                                Trial Judge: Brian Burgess

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant James Anderson was convicted of one count of sexual
  assault on a minor in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(3).  He now 
  appeals, contending that the district court erred in admitting evidence of
  uncharged sexual misconduct pursuant to Vermont Rule of Evidence 404(b). 
  We conclude that the court properly admitted the evidence for the purpose
  of demonstrating a common plan or scheme in defendant's actions towards his
  victim, and we therefore affirm the district court.

       ¶  2.  In October of 2000, defendant's minor niece, R.D., wrote a
  letter to one of her teachers indicating that defendant had sexually abused
  her the previous spring.  The teacher and other school personnel then met
  with R.D. and submitted a report to the Department of Social and
  Rehabilitation Services (SRS).  The following day SRS social worker Ronnie
  Cohen and State Trooper Greg Campbell interviewed R.D., who told them that,
  before March of 2002, she frequently babysat for her cousins at defendant's
  house.  She went on to describe an incident in March when defendant came
  home while she was babysitting and joined in when she began wrestling with
  her cousins.  R.D. said that during the horseplay defendant grabbed her
  buttocks inappropriately for several seconds.  After they stopped wrestling
  she left to put the children to bed and then returned to lie on the couch
  and watch television.  She said that defendant later joined her on the
  couch where, despite her efforts to stop him, he unhooked her bra and
  fondled her breasts, placed her hand on his penis, asked her to engage in
  oral sex, and then pulled down her shorts and digitally penetrated her
  vagina. 
   
       ¶  3.  R.D. said that she did not report this incident immediately
  because defendant had threatened to kill her, and she was afraid that
  nobody would believe her.  She said she no longer wanted to be alone at
  defendant's house, and only babysat there one more time.  Further, she said
  that when she did see defendant in the months following the incident he
  would take advantage of any momentary privacy to grab her breasts and
  buttocks, and would then flash her a smile.  Following the interview,
  Trooper Campbell sought and obtained a wire warrant to monitor and record a
  telephone conversation between R.D. and defendant.  During that
  conversation, defendant made several incriminating statements in response
  to R.D.'s questions, and Trooper Campbell decided to interview him the next
  day.  In the interview, defendant denied all of R.D.'s allegations other
  than the wrestling incident, and claimed that, if he had digitally
  penetrated her vagina, it was unintentional.  Trooper Campbell then
  arrested defendant, who was later arraigned on one count of sexual assault
  on a minor in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(3).

       ¶  4.  In July 2003, the State filed notice that it intended to
  introduce evidence of other bad acts at trial.  The notice indicated that
  R.D. would testify about defendant's conduct in the months following the
  charged incident, particularly his attempts to grab and fondle her in
  passing moments of privacy.  The State further claimed that R.D. would
  recount a specific incident when defendant attempted to touch her vagina
  under the table during a card game.  In the notice, the State argued that
  the evidence was admissible to help explain R.D.'s delay in reporting the
  assault. 

       ¶  5.  Defendant filed a motion in limine objecting to the State's
  intentions, and the court held a hearing to address the issue.  After the
  State withdrew its effort to introduce evidence about the incident during
  the card game, the court ruled the remaining testimony admissible for the
  purpose of demonstrating a common plan or scheme in defendant's conduct
  towards R.D.  The court further observed that the evidence could be
  relevant to counter defendant's initial claim that any inappropriate
  touching was accidental or inadvertent.  The  court was not persuaded,
  however, by the State's argument that the uncharged conduct helped explain
  R.D.'s delay in reporting the sexual assault.  

       ¶  6.  At trial, R.D. testified, over defense objection, about the
  occasions when defendant would touch her breasts or buttocks in passing. 
  Before deliberations, the court instructed the jury to only consider this
  testimony for the limited purposes of determining whether defendant had
  engaged in a common plan or scheme of sexualized conduct towards R.D., or
  whether the charged conduct was accidental or inadvertent.  The jury
  returned a guilty verdict and the court entered judgment against defendant. 
  This appeal followed.

       ¶  7.  We review a trial court's decision to admit evidence of
  uncharged conduct pursuant to V.R.E. 404(b) to determine whether the
  evidence "was relevant and material to the cause of action, and if so,
  whether its admission was so prejudicial as to outweigh its probative
  value."  State v. Lipka, 174 Vt. 377, 390,