Case Title: State v. Fisher

Citation: 167 Vt. 36, 702 A.2d 41

Docket Number: 96-015

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Fisher  (96-015); 167 Vt. 36; 702 A.2d 41

[Opinion Filed 21-Mar-1997]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 6-Aug-1997]

       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. 96-015

State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Douglas W. Fisher                                 November Term, 1996

Paul F. Hudson, J.

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert J. Appel, Defender General, Anna E. Saxman, Appellate Defender,
  Montpelier, and Allan R. Keyes, Of Counsel, Rutland, for
  defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       GIBSON, J.   Defendant Douglas Fisher appeals his conviction for lewd
  or lascivious conduct with a child in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2602.  He
  claims that the court's admission of hearsay testimony by a court-appointed
  psychologist, a social worker, and a police officer violated V.R.E. 804a. 
  He also protests the admission of certain statements by the psychologist,
  and claims the court erred in allowing the psychologist to testify as both
  an expert and a Rule 804a witness.  We affirm the court's judgment,
  finding, in part, that although the 804a testimony by the psychologist was
  improperly admitted, the admission was harmless.

       The allegations against defendant arose in 1993 during a visitation
  dispute, one in a series of family conflicts.  Defendant and his former
  wife married in 1982 and separated in 1988, with the divorce becoming final
  in 1990.  The former wife was awarded custody of two daughters from the
  marriage; defendant received visitation rights.  In 1992, defendant was
  acquitted of sexual assault charges brought by his former wife based on
  alleged conduct during the marriage.

 

  Visitation with both children continued throughout this period.

       In September 1992, the mother cut off visitation after the girls told
  her they no longer wanted to visit defendant.  As part of the effort to
  settle this dispute, the family court ordered a psychological evaluation of
  the two girls, then ages eight and nine, in June 1993.  During the first
  session, the children talked generally about visits and described a violent
  fight they had witnessed between defendant and a female friend.  That
  evening, however, the older daughter informed her mother of sexually
  inappropriate behavior that occurred during visitation.  The mother related
  the story to the psychologist, who scheduled a second visit, and reported
  the information to the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
  (SRS), which informed the police.

       On the second visit with the psychologist, the older child described
  the abuse, with the younger daughter agreeing, "That happened to me too." 
  A few days later, an SRS investigator and a Brattleboro police officer also
  interviewed both children.  Defendant was subsequently convicted of two
  counts of lewd or lascivious conduct with his daughters.  This appeal
  followed.

       Defendant first contends that the psychologist's testimony during
  trial concerning statements made by the youngest child was inadmissible
  under V.R.E. 804a.  Rule 804a allows a witness to testify to hearsay
  statements made by a child ten years old or younger if the statements are
  offered in a sexual assault case where the child is an alleged victim, the
  statements were not taken in preparation for a legal proceeding, the child
  is available to testify, and the circumstances surrounding the statements
  show they are trustworthy.  V.R.E. 804a(a); State v. Weeks, 160 Vt. 393,
  399,