## Facts

- On March 31, 1996, Mark Sanders confronted his live-in girlfriend in their home in Burlington, Vermont.
- Sanders was not supposed to be at the home. The victim returned with her friend, Jodi Bell, and was surprised to find him there.
- Sanders began breaking glass and smashing items in the home, prompting the victim and Bell to lock themselves in a bathroom.
- Bell ran next door to call the police. When she returned, she found Sanders and the victim in the kitchen and stood between them to protect the victim.
- Sanders picked up a knife and said, “someone is going to die . . . who’s it gonna be?”
- The State charged Sanders with aggravated domestic assault for threatening to use a deadly weapon on a household member.
- Before trial, the State sent defense counsel a letter more than two months in advance identifying “prior bad acts” it intended to offer.
- Over Sanders’s objection, the trial court admitted evidence of two February 1996 incidents involving Sanders and the same victim:
  - On February 10, after the victim asked Sanders to leave, he choked her and threw her across the room, causing a bloody nose.
  - On February 18, Sanders took the victim’s car without permission and screamed threats, including that he would “never leave without a fight.”
- At trial, the victim recanted much of the substance of the February incidents, and the State questioned her about the events and her earlier statements.
- The jury convicted Sanders, and he appealed, challenging the admission and use of the prior-acts evidence.

## Issues

1. Did the State provide sufficient pretrial notice of its intent to offer other-acts evidence under Vermont Rule of Evidence 404(b)?
2. Did the trial court err under V.R.E. 404(b) by admitting evidence of two prior domestic-violence incidents involving the same victim to prove a non-character purpose such as intent?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion under V.R.E. 403 (and related evidentiary rules) by allowing the State to question the victim about the prior incidents and use prior statements after she recanted at trial?

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Sanders’s conviction.
- The court held that the State’s letter sent more than two months before trial gave adequate notice of the two incidents the State sought to introduce, and Sanders did not show unfair surprise or inability to prepare.
- The court upheld admission of the February incidents under V.R.E. 404(b) because they were offered for a proper, non-propensity purpose—showing Sanders’s intent and explaining the nature of the relationship leading up to the charged threat with a knife—rather than to show he acted in conformity with a violent character.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s V.R.E. 403 balancing; the prior incidents were close in time, involved the same victim, and were limited in number, supporting their probative value relative to the risk of unfair prejudice.
- The court also found no reversible error in permitting the State to question the victim about the prior incidents and address inconsistencies after she recanted; credibility disputes created by recantation did not make the evidence inadmissible.

## Legal Principles

- Other-acts evidence is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show action in conformity with that character, but it may be admissible under V.R.E. 404(b) for another purpose, including intent.
- In domestic-violence prosecutions, recent prior assaults or threats against the same victim may be highly probative of intent and may help explain the relationship and the charged conduct, so long as the evidence is admitted for a non-character use.
- Under V.R.E. 403, a trial court may exclude relevant evidence only if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Pretrial notice of other-acts evidence is generally satisfied when the State identifies the acts with enough time and specificity to allow the defense to prepare, absent a concrete showing of unfair surprise.
- When a witness recants or changes their account, the State may question the witness about prior statements and inconsistencies subject to the trial court’s control of the mode and scope of examination and the limits of Rule 403.

## Conclusion

State v. Sanders affirmed a conviction for aggravated domestic assault where the trial court admitted two recent prior incidents between the defendant and the same victim under V.R.E. 404(b) to show intent and relationship background, found the State’s letter notice sufficient, and permitted questioning and impeachment after the victim recanted at trial.


State v. Sanders, 716 A.2d 11 (1998)