If Your Ex Knows You’ve Assaulted Your Girlfriend, Is it Reasona
If Your Ex Knows You’ve Assaulted Your Girlfriend, Is it Reasonable for Her to Believe You’ll Assault Her?
William Hinchliffe’s 1990 divorce was calm. He regularly contacted his ex-wife (Jane Doe) regarding their two 13-year-old children without incident. But in 2005, William, out of jail on bail following domestic abuse of his then girlfriend, came to Jane’s house and screamed and yelled at her. Jane went to the woman’s house to get some of William’s belongings. The woman had an abrasion behind her ear. She was trembling and crying.
In 2007, William began telephoning Jane frequently, yelling and calling her names. William showed up at Jane’s house at 7am unannounced, screaming at her. Jane complained to the police. The police warned William not to contact Jane. Nevertheless, William went to Jane’s unannounced and screamed at her for contacting his former girlfriend. He’d call 12 to 15 times a week. He sent text messages and e-mails. At one point he yelled at Jane “You’re going to pay for this.” William never threatened Jane with bodily harm, or sexual assault, but she was afraid of him. Jane had trouble sleeping, and changed her life to being hypervigilant. William was charged with “Stalking,” and convicted. He appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court
The crime of “Stalking” requires proof of (1) a course of conduct causing a reasonable person to fear… bodily injury and (2) the conduct served no legitimate purpose, and (3) the conduct would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person.
William argued there was insufficient evidence to convict him. Jane testified William had never threatened to cause her bodily injury. Further, his domestic assault conviction on the ex-girlfriend should not have been admitted as evidence because the rules of evidence (Rule 403) prevent use of prior crimes to prove a person committed the crime in question – so called propensity evidence. (The purpose of the rule is to prevent people from being convicted of crimes based on a bad reputation, rather then evidence proving the crime at issue). Without that evidence, he argued, his conduct did not meet the “Stalking” test.
A unanimous court upheld the conviction. Rule 403 does prevent use of prior crimes to prove the defendant was the type of person who would commit the crime on trial. However, in this case, that was not why it was offered. One element of required proof was that a reasonable person would fear bodily injury. Jane’s knowledge of the assault, the Court ruled, was relevant on that issue. The jury was instructed to determine whether a “reasonable person,” not Jane herself, would fear bodily injury. The jury could properly conclude the evidence met that test.
In Federal Court, Rule 403 does not apply to sex cases. This case is another in which the Vermont Court has relaxed the application of 403 to sex-type cases. State v. Hinchliffe 2009 VT 111
