Title: State v. Hill

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Hill (2001-358); 174 Vt. 566; 816 A.2d 440

[Filed 30-Oct-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-358

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2002


  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
                                       }
  Dean Hill, Jr.	               }	DOCKET NO. 43-1-00 OsCr

                                                Trial Judge: Howard E. 
                                                             VanBenthuysen

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Defendant Dean Hill, Jr. appeals from his conviction of aggravated
  sexual assault for which he was sentenced to serve thirty-five to sixty
  years.  Defendant raises three claims on appeal: (1) he asserts that he was
  denied the right to a fair trial when the trial court limited his
  cross-examination of the victim, based on her prior deposition testimony;
  (2) he argues that the trial court committed plain error in allowing the
  Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS) worker to testify in
  a manner that vouched for the victim's credibility; (3) he contends that
  the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made
  to the probation officer during the presentence investigation interview,
  because they were taken in violation of his rights under Miranda v.
  Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966).  We affirm.

       Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated sexual assault
  under 13 V.S.A. § 3253(a)(8), as a person over the age of eighteen years
  who engaged in a sexual act - in this case, mouth to vulva contact - with
  another person under the age of ten years.  Various pretrial motions were
  filed, including a notice of Rule 804a evidence filed by the State seeking
  to introduce hearsay statements of D.M., the alleged victim, through the
  testimony of the school guidance counselor, the SRS investigator, and the
  victim's mother.  Over defendant's objections, the court ruled that the
  804a statements would be admitted.

       After a one-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.  The
  court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI), which included an
  interview with defendant by a probation officer.  Defendant subsequently
  filed a motion for a new trial, asserting the three arguments mentioned
  above.  At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied defendant's
  motion on all three grounds and, relying on the presentence investigation
  report, sentenced defendant to a term of thirty-five to sixty years. 
  Defendant appealed the conviction and the sentence.

 
        
       On appeal, defendant first argues that his constitutional right to a
  fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
  Constitution and Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution was
  violated when the trial court prohibited him from cross-examining the minor
  victim about her failure to describe the charged act in her deposition.  As
  the trial court's ruling was an exercise of discretion under V.R.E. 403, we
  review this ruling under an abuse of discretion standard.  See State v.
  Cartee, 161 Vt. 73, 75,