## Facts

- Steven L. Kinney was tried by jury in Vermont District Court (Lamoille Circuit) and convicted of kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and lewd and lascivious conduct.
- On October 9–10, 1998, Kinney drank alcohol and used cocaine and marijuana; he later testified his faculties were “fairly clouded.”
- After 1:00 a.m., Kinney and friends went to Lucas Sweetser’s home seeking to buy more cocaine.
- Kinney entered and soon exited carrying the victim over his shoulder, placed her in a car, and the group drove away.
- Kinney claimed the victim agreed to accompany him and later participated voluntarily; the victim testified she refused, was taken from bed over her resistance, and repeatedly asked to be let out of the car.
- A witness described the victim being dragged into a party house “like a puppy dog.”
- After a stop at a party, Kinney took the victim to his parents’ house, where intercourse occurred; Kinney claimed consent, and the victim alleged rape.
- The trial court admitted expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome (RTS), including testimony that false rape reports are very rare.
- Kinney received two concurrent sentences of 40-years-to-life and a concurrent sentence of 4–5 years.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a diminished capacity/intoxication instruction on whether intoxication could negate required mens rea.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the required mental states for kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and lewd and lascivious conduct.
3. Whether admitting RTS testimony, including low false-reporting statistics, was erroneous and required reversal.
4. Whether the sentence was unlawful or disproportionate, including arguments tied to kidnapping’s voluntary-release provision and statutory authority.

## Decision

- Affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- Held that, although intoxication evidence can warrant an instruction on its bearing on intent, any failure to give a separate instruction was not reversible error on this record.
- Concluded the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find the required mental states beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Approved RTS testimony used to explain victim behavior, but held that expert testimony on very low false-reporting rates was improper credibility bolstering; admission nonetheless did not constitute plain error.
- Rejected sentencing challenges, holding the imposed concurrent terms were within statutory limits and did not violate due process or proportionality requirements.

## Legal Principles

- When there is evidence of intoxication capable of negating criminal intent, the court should ordinarily instruct the jury that it may consider intoxication on mens rea; omission may be harmless where intoxication is not the defense theory and the evidence of intent is strong.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- RTS expert testimony may be admitted to assist the jury in understanding victim behavior and to rebut claims that post-assault conduct is inconsistent with rape.
- RTS evidence may not be used to vouch for credibility; statistical assertions about the rarity of false reports are tantamount to an expert opinion that the victim is truthful and invade the jury’s role.
- Sentencing within statutory limits will be upheld absent a due process or proportionality violation; statutory defenses such as voluntary release in kidnapping are factual matters for the jury when properly raised and submitted.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Kinney’s convictions and lengthy concurrent sentence, holding that any error in declining a separate intoxication instruction was harmless, the evidence supported the jury’s findings, RTS testimony was generally permissible to explain victim behavior but not to imply truthfulness through false-reporting statistics, and the sentence was authorized by statute and constitutionally permissible.


State v. Kinney, 171 Vt. 239, 762 A.2d 833 (Vt. 2000)