## Facts

- Mark Vuley rented a single-family home with a detached two-car garage in Colchester, Vermont.
- Over roughly eight weeks (Nov. 28, 2008–Jan. 18, 2009), fire and police departments responded to four separate fires at the property.
- The first fire destroyed the detached garage; the cause was classified as undetermined due to the extent of destruction.
- Evidence included defendant’s intoxication and statements made around the time of the first fire, including comments such as “Good fire, huh?” and “So I did a good job, then, right?”
- The State charged defendant with four counts of arson (one per fire).
- The trial court denied defendant’s motion to sever the counts.
- The court instructed the jury, in substance, that “rare events like fires do not normally happen together” and that the multiplicity of fires could support an inference that the fires were not accidental but willfully set by defendant.
- The jury acquitted defendant on the first two counts and convicted on the latter two.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could infer willful arson from the fact that “rare events like fires do not normally happen together,” and, if so, whether the unpreserved error warranted reversal under plain-error review.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions on the two arson counts resulting in guilty verdicts.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court held that the “doctrine of chances” jury instruction was erroneous.
- Because defendant did not object at trial, the Court reviewed the instruction only for plain error.
- The Court concluded the erroneous instruction did not constitute plain error and affirmed the convictions.
- The Court also determined that, considering the record as a whole, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts on the latter two counts.

## Legal Principles

- Multiplicity of similar, unusual events within a short time may be relevant circumstantial evidence bearing on whether an event was accidental or intentional.
- A trial court should not give a jury instruction that presents an abstract, quasi-statistical probability rationale (untethered to record evidence) as an authoritative basis for inferring intent.
- Under plain-error review, an unobjected-to instructional error warrants reversal only if it is obvious and so serious that it results in a miscarriage of justice or undermines core rights.
- A split verdict (acquittals on some counts, convictions on others) may support a conclusion that the jury assessed the evidence count-by-count rather than being driven by an improper overarching inference.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to treat multiple fires as proof of willful arson through an unsupported probability-based rationale, but held the unpreserved error was not plain error and affirmed defendant’s convictions on two arson counts based on sufficient independent evidence.


State v. Vuley, 70 A.3d 940 (Vt. 2013)