Case Title: State v. Willis

Citation: 2006 VT 128

Docket Number: 2004-154

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

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

Document:
State v. Willis (2004-154)

2006 VT 128

[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 128

                                No. 2004-154


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

  Kim A. Willis                                  November Term, 2005


  M. Patricia Zimmerman, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
    General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ., and 
            Gibson, J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.   Defendant Kim Willis appeals from his
  conviction, after a jury trial, of one count of sexual assault on a minor
  and two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.  He argues that
  the trial court committed reversible error by:  (1) admitting hearsay
  statements from one of the victims, Z.S., under Vermont Rule of Evidence
  804a; (2) refusing to sever the lewd and lascivious count involving Z.S.
  from the counts involving another victim; (3) allowing the State to amend
  one of the counts during trial; and (4) denying his request to inquire into
  Z.S.'s sexual history.  We affirm.  
   
       ¶  2.  Defendant worked as a part-time care provider at the Vermont
  Crisis Intervention Network (VCIN) in Moretown, Vermont.  In April 2001, he
  was charged with engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct with, and sexual
  assaulting, J.G., a developmentally disabled child receiving services from
  VCIN.  Defendant was also charged with engaging in lewd and lascivious
  conduct with Z.S., another developmentally disabled child under his
  supervision.  Both children disclosed the abuse to others. 

       ¶  3.  The State moved to admit the children's hearsay statements at
  trial pursuant to V.R.E. 804a.  Rule 804a allows a witness to testify to
  hearsay statements made by a mentally retarded individual if the trial
  court finds that: (1) the statements are offered in a sexual abuse case
  where the mentally retarded person is the alleged victim; (2) the
  statements were not taken in preparation for a legal proceeding; (3) the
  individual is available to testify; and (4) the "time, content and
  circumstances of the statements provide substantial indicia of
  trustworthiness."  V.R.E. 804a(a)(1)-(4).  After a hearing, the trial court
  concluded that the requirements of the rule were satisfied and the
  statements were admissible at trial.  

       ¶  4.  In reaching its conclusion, the court made the following
  findings.  J.G. was born in April 1986.  He has mild autism and pervasive
  development disorder, and he requires constant supervision except to sleep. 
  J.G. lived with his grandmother and legal guardian until he was ten years
  old.  He then moved into a developmental care home.  Between mid-January
  2001 and February 22, 2001, J.G. was staying at VCIN. 
   
       ¶  5.  On February 16, 2001, J.G. disclosed to his community
  outreach specialist that he had watched a movie at VCIN that "showed men
  and women licking each others butts and penises and the girls' 'rogina.' " 
  J.G. stated that he had "licked someone's penis and it was done to him." 
  He said that he could not disclose who had done it "because this person
  would be mad."  The specialist reported the incident to her supervisor, who
  arranged to have J.G. interviewed.  Prior to the interview, J.G. made
  additional disclosures about the abuse to his grandmother, and to an
  employee of the Department for Children and Families (DCF).  J.G.
  identified defendant as the perpetrator. 

       ¶  6.  On February 21, 2001, J.G. was interviewed by a Vermont State
  Trooper and a DCF investigator.  J.G. provided extensive detail about the
  abuse.  He recounted watching a movie with defendant about "cuddling."  He
  described "cuddling" as 

    like men and boys, ah, like do like that licking and, ah tickling
    men's, I mean woman's and girl's butts and, and, ah, woman and
    girls, um, putting their mouths on men's virgins or their penises
    and, ah, and ah, woman and girls like to make strange noises like
    oh that feels good, like crying and pouting and stuff, those kinds
    of noises . . . . 

       ¶  7.  Before, during, and after watching the movie, J.G. explained
  that he and defendant "cuddled each other."  He described this as "cuddled
  like, ah, he touched my penis and rubbed my butt and tickles, um, put my
  hand . . . and then I rubbed his butt and I touched his penis and then we
  took a shower."  J.G. stated that defendant sucked and pulled his penis and
  then he did the same to defendant.  J.G. said they "cuddled" until about 11
  or 12 at night and then "early in the morning like about 5, 4:30, 4:30, 5,
  we got up and did it again and then we went back to bed and then it was
  6:30, got up at 6:30 and then, ah, that was it."  J.G. provided a graphic
  and detailed description of having anal and oral sex with defendant and
  vice versa.  

       ¶  8.  J.G. stated that defendant told him that if they kept cuddling,
  defendant would buy him anything he wanted at the store.  The next day,
  defendant had no money so defendant gave him some items from his house
  instead.  Defendant told J.G. not to tell anyone about what had happened
  because "you and me would both get into big trouble."
   
       ¶  9.  In light of J.G.'s disclosures, State authorities scheduled
  an interview with Z.S., who  similarly had unsupervised contact with
  defendant.  Z.S. was born in August 1986.  He had a history of
  developmental delay and neuromotor problems resulting in gross motor and
  fine motor and speech disabilities.  He had a hearing loss of a moderate
  degree.  His IQ was 46, which indicated a significant subaverage
  intellectual functioning.  Z.S. had problems walking, he was unbalanced, he
  had speech problems, and he acted much younger than his chronological age. 
  He lived with a trained care provider, and required twenty-four hour
  supervision. 

       ¶  10.  Z.S. was interviewed by a State Trooper on February 22, 2001,
  the day after J.G.'s interview.  Ms. Boardman, the DCF investigator, was
  also present, and she took notes.  The purpose of the interview was to ask
  Z.S. if anyone had touched him inappropriately.  The interview lasted about
  one-half hour as Z.S. did not want to answer questions.  During the initial
  portion of the interview, before the tape-recorder was activated, Z.S.
  stated that defendant "touched my privates." 

       ¶  11.  On the evening after the interview, during his bath time, Z.S.
  acted strangely and made odd comments to his respite care provider who had
  been looking after Z.S. for approximately two years.  While getting ready
  for his bath, Z.S. asked if his testicles were going to fall off.  During
  the bath, Z.S. was scrubbing his private parts very hard.  He began hitting
  his private parts and hollering "bad."  Z.S. never exhibited such behavior
  before, nor had he previously made any such statements.  The respite worker
  was aware that Z.S. had been interviewed by DCF that day but he did not
  know the purpose of the interview nor the contents of any statements that
  Z.S. made.  

       ¶  12.  The following morning, Z.S. was in the kitchen and tried to
  punch the respite worker between the legs.  Z.S. had never done this
  before.  Z.S. stated that defendant touched him there.  The respite worker
  asked, "[Defendant] touches you there?" and Z.S. replied, "Yes."  The
  respite worker asked when this happened, and Z.S. replied, "When I played
  my game."  Z.S. stated that he had not told anyone because he did not want
  to get into trouble.  He also stated that the incident happened because he
  was bad and it was his fault.  The respite worker called the boy's
  residential care provider and advised him of Z.S.'s statements.  
   
       ¶  13.  At the Rule 804a hearing, defendant argued that the
  children's statements should not be admitted, and he presented expert
  testimony to challenge the reliability of the disclosures.  The court was
  not persuaded by the expert's testimony.  Instead, based on the facts above
  and numerous additional findings, the court concluded that the children's
  statements were reliable and admissible.  As to J.G., the court explained
  that he provided consistent detailed statements about the abuse, and his
  statements raised a strong suspicion that sexual acts occurred with
  defendant.  The court concluded that the statements appeared trustworthy
  and they were not taken in preparation for legal proceedings.

       ¶  14.  The court found Z.S.'s hearsay statements similarly
  admissible.  It explained that Z.S. made spontaneous disclosures to the
  respite worker, a trusted adult.  Z.S. had never made such statements
  before, nor had he behaved in a similar fashion.  The information that Z.S.
  provided to the respite worker, including his identification of defendant,
  was consistent with that provided to the trooper and DCF investigator. 
  Thus, looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court found that
  the time, content, and circumstances of the statements demonstrated
  sufficient indicia of reliability, and Z.S.'s statements to the respite
  worker were not taken in preparation for legal proceedings.
   
       ¶  15.  The court reached a similar conclusion with respect to Z.S.'s
  statements to the trooper and DCF investigator.  As to reliability, the
  court explained that, at the time of the interview, the interviewers
  possessed no knowledge that Z.S. had been abused; he was interviewed only
  because of J.G.'s disclosures and the fact that he had had unsupervised
  contact with defendant.  The court found that, although the suggested
  interview protocol was not followed initially because the tape recorder was
  not turned on, this fact alone did not render the statements untrustworthy. 
  In a later part of the interview, which was recorded, the transcript
  reflected the interviewer's "recap" of the statements made in the nontaped
  portion of the interview.  The court found the trooper's notes from the
  untaped interview consistent with what Z.S. said during the taped portion
  of the interview.  The court also found that, although the trooper asked
  Z.S. a leading question-"whether any adult had ever touched his
  privates"-there was nothing in the question to suggest any particular
  person.  Z.S.'s disclosure was also consistent with statements made to the
  respite worker.  Finally, the court found that although Z.S. was not a
  "willing" interview participant, he twice described the same sexual
  activity with defendant.  Thus, looking at the totality of the
  circumstances, the court concluded that the statements showed sufficient
  indicia of reliability.  

       ¶  16.  In reaching its conclusion, the court considered the expert
  testimony offered by defendant, but determined that there had not been such
  significant breaches of interviewing protocol that the boys' statements
  should be deemed untrustworthy.  The court found no coaching or suggestive
  questions so egregious as to compromise the result of the interview.   It
  explained that any inconsistencies between the boys' deposition testimony
  and their hearsay statements were for the factfinder to resolve at trial.

       ¶  17.  The court also found that Z.S.'s statements were not taken in
  preparation for legal proceedings, reiterating that Z.S. was interviewed
  for the first time on the day after J.G.'s interview, and that Z.S. had not
  disclosed any abuse prior to the interview.  Additionally, the court
  explained, Z.S. and J.G. did not know one another, and they had never been
  in the same placements at the same time.  The court thus found all of the
  hearsay statements admissible under Rule 804a. 

       ¶  18.  The State relied on the children's hearsay statements at
  trial, among other evidence.  The children also testified and were subject
  to cross-examination.  Defendant testified on his own behalf, asserting
  that the abuse did not occur.  The jury found defendant guilty on all
  counts, and this appeal followed.  
   
       ¶  19.  Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in
  admitting Z.S.'s hearsay statements  to the trooper and DCF investigator
  because they lacked substantial indicia of trustworthiness.  In support of
  this assertion, defendant points to testimony by his expert witness that
  the questioning of Z.S. was improper and that Z.S.'s statements were
  insufficiently descriptive.  Defendant asserts that all of the trooper's
  questions were leading and notes that the initial portion of the interview
  was not tape-recorded. 

       ¶  20.  We reject these arguments, which are at odds with our standard
  of review.  The trial court "has great discretion in admitting or excluding
  evidence under [Rule 804a], and we will not reverse such decisions unless
  there has been an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice."  State v.
  Fisher, 167 Vt. 36, 39,