## Facts

- Matthew S. Trombley and George Demarais, both drinking at a bar in St. Albans, Vermont, became involved in a fight on February 18, 2000.
- Demarais testified Trombley attacked him inside the bar from behind, placing him in a headlock and punching him in the face until bystanders separated them.
- Trombley testified a brief struggle occurred and, after Demarais left, Trombley followed outside to confront him.
- Outside on Main Street, Demarais testified Trombley grabbed him from behind and punched him repeatedly until Demarais fell and began losing consciousness; Demarais then pulled a small knife and slashed backward over his shoulder.
- Trombley testified he tackled Demarais, and after falling to the ground he felt pain from being stabbed; he became scared and angry and repeatedly punched Demarais to make the stabbing stop.
- Demarais suffered significant facial injuries, including swollen-shut eyes with partial vision loss and knocked-out/damaged teeth.
- Trombley suffered multiple stab wounds that were not life-threatening.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury it could convict if Trombley acted “purposely” or “knowingly,” when the charge alleged only “purposely” causing serious bodily injury under 13 V.S.A. § 1024(a)(1).
2. Whether the trial court erred by declining to instruct jurors to consider Trombley’s fear and emotions when deciding if he acted “purposely.”
3. Whether the self-defense instructions, taken as a whole, were misleading and caused the jury to reject Trombley’s self-defense claim.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the aggravated-assault conviction.
- The court held it was error to include “knowingly” as an alternative mens rea where the information charged only “purposely.”
- The court concluded the mens rea instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Trombley’s account of acting to stop the stabbing still reflected a conscious objective to inflict serious bodily injury.
- The court held the trial court did not err in refusing a separate instruction tying fear and emotions to the ability to form purposeful intent.
- The court held the self-defense instructions, read in their entirety, adequately presented the justification theory and were not misleading.

## Legal Principles

- A jury instruction that expands the mens rea beyond what is charged is erroneous, but the conviction may be affirmed if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Harmlessness may be found where the evidence (including the defendant’s own testimony) effectively establishes the charged, higher mental state, such that the verdict would rest on the proper standard.
- Fear and anger, without evidence of an impaired ability to form intent, do not require an additional instruction that they negate purposeful intent; such emotions may instead be addressed within the self-defense framework.
- Self-defense instructions are evaluated as a whole; isolated phrasing does not warrant reversal unless the overall charge misstates the law or misleads the jury regarding the justification defense and the State’s burden.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Trombley’s aggravated-assault conviction, holding that the trial court’s improper inclusion of “knowingly” in the mens rea instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury was properly instructed on intent and self-defense when the charge was considered in its entirety.


State v. Trombley, 174 Vt. 459, 807 A.2d 400 (Vt. 2002)