Case Title: State v. Marcy

Citation: 165 Vt 89, 680 A.2d 76

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Marcy  (94-173); 165 Vt 89; 680 A.2d 76

[Opinion Filed 22-Mar-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 94-173

State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           District Court of Vermont
                                                  Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

Steven Marcy                                      June Term, 1995


David Suntag, J.

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Defender,
  Montpelier, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       JOHNSON, J.  Defendant appeals his conviction by jury for simple
  assault.  He argues that the trial court erred by (1) admitting the assault
  victim's tape-recorded statement as past recollection recorded, pursuant to
  V.R.E. 803(5), and (2) denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal
  pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 29, because the sole evidence supporting defendant's
  conviction is past recollection recorded, which defendant argues does not
  meet the standards for reliability set out by this court in State v. Robar,
  157 Vt. 387, 395, 601 A.2d 1376, 1380 (1991).  We affirm the trial court,
  holding that the tape-recorded statement of the victim was properly
  admitted as past recollection recorded and that the victim's statement was
  sufficiently reliable to support the conviction.

 

                                I.

       The victim was defendant's wife.  Following the assault on December
  28, 1992, the victim obtained a restraining order against defendant.  On
  December 29, 1992, the day after the assault, a police officer went to the
  victim's home in response to her complaint against defendant.  The victim
  told the officer that she had been assaulted by defendant, who had "pounded
  her head against a door" and "choked her to the point where she nearly
  blacked out," and that he had damaged several guns.  At the time of the
  interview, the officer observed scratches on the victim's face, which she
  claimed were the result of the physical confrontation with defendant.  The
  officer also interviewed two other residents of the house.  One of those
  residents stated that he had seen defendant and his wife enter their
  bedroom, that he had heard shouting, including the victim saying, "Don't do
  it, please don't do this," and that he had heard noises coming from the
  bedroom, including a banging against the door.  The other resident stated
  only that he had heard an argument inside the house.

       After speaking with these three people, the police officer
  tape-recorded an interview with the victim, which the officer testified was
  consistent with what the victim had told him earlier. The officer also
  testified that the victim appeared to be alert and to understand what she
  was doing while he was tape-recording the interview, and that she showed no
  indication that she was having trouble remembering the events of the
  previous night.

       At trial, the victim testified that she did not remember the assault. 
  She maintained that she only could remember visiting a psychiatrist's
  office with defendant, who left the office without her, returning home
  afterward, and following defendant into the bedroom to find out what had
  upset him.  She vaguely recalled something about guns being broken, but
  could not

 

  remember the details.  She testified that she remembered getting a
  restraining order on December 28, but she did not remember how she got to
  the police station.  She also remembered that a trooper had come to her
  home, but she did not remember calling the police, and she did not remember
  being choked by defendant.

       The State then offered the victim's tape-recorded statement pursuant
  to V.R.E. 803(5), as past recollection recorded.  The State called several
  witnesses (out of the presence of the jury), including the victim, the
  police officer who took the statement, and a victim advocate with whom the
  victim had spoken, to lay a foundation for the admission of the statement. 
  The court found that the statement satisfied the requirements of Rule
  803(5).

                                II.

       We first consider whether the trial court properly admitted the
  victim's tape-recorded statement, pursuant to V.R.E. 803(5), as past
  recollection recorded.(FN1)  Rule 803(5), which is identical to its
  counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, establishes an exception to
  the hearsay rule for a previously recorded recollection of an event, when
  the witness has no present recollection of the event.  State v. Lander, 155
  Vt. 645, 645, 582 A.2d 128, 128 (1991) (mem.).

 

  We have previously held that documents admitted pursuant to V.R.E. 803(5)
  must meet three requirements:

  "(1) The document must pertain to matters about which the declarant once had
  knowledge; (2) The declarant must now have an insufficient recollection as to
  such matters; (3) The document must be shown to have been made by the
  declarant or, if made by one other than the declarant, to have been examined by
  the declarant and shown to accurately reflect the declarant's knowledge when the
  matters were fresh in his memory."

  State v. Paquette, 146 Vt. 1, 3,