Case Title: State v. Hazelton

Citation: 2006 VT 121

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Hazelton (2004-283)

2006 VT 121

[Filed 22-Nov-2006]


       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.


                                 2006 VT 121

                                No. 2004-283


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit

  Sherrill Hazelton                              September Term, 2005


  David T. Suntag, J.

  William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, and David R. Fenster
    and  Daniel M. McManus, Deputy State's Attorneys, Bennington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender, and
    Rebecca Turner, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for
    Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.   Defendant appeals from his conviction and
  sentence following a jury trial on two counts of sexual assault.  He claims
  on appeal: (1) that the court improperly allowed the State to introduce
  hearsay evidence against him; (2) that the court erred in allowing him to
  be prosecuted for two crimes arising out of a single act; and (3) that his
  concurrent sentences of eighteen to twenty years are illegal because, after
  allowing for good time off the maximum, the minimum term could match or
  exceed the maximum term.  We reverse and remand on defendant's first point,
  respond to his second issue as germane to retrial, and do not reach his
  third issue.
   
       ¶  2.  Defendant was charged with sexually assaulting S.L., the
  niece of his girlfriend, while babysitting S.L. and her younger sister. 
  S.L. was ten years old at the time of the alleged assault.  S.L. testified
  that she had been playing outside with some other children and that when
  she went into the house to use the bathroom defendant sexually assaulted
  her by use of force.  There was no other witness or evidence to corroborate
  the alleged assault.  Defendant testified and denied the allegations.
   
                                     I.


       ¶  3.  Defendant's first claim of error is that the trial court
  allowed the State to bolster S.L.'s credibility with hearsay after defense
  counsel impeached her testimony at trial with a prior inconsistent
  statement made in an earlier deposition.  S.L.'s statements at issue-prior
  descriptions of the assault to the investigating police officer and to her
  grandmother-were proffered by the State on the theory that prior consistent
  statements would allow the prosecution "to argue that there were no other
  inconsistencies."  The State cited State v. Church, 167 Vt. 604,