Title: State v. Duffy

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-283


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
 Sean Duffy                                   Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

                                              December Term, 1991


 Paul F. Hudson, J.

 Gary Kessler, Supervising Appellate Prosecutor, Montpelier, for plaintiff-
   appellee

 Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from his conviction of sexual assault
 on a minor, 13 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(3), arguing that the court erred by admit-
 ting hearsay statements of the putative victim.  We affirm.
      On July 31, 1989, the three-and-one-half-year-old victim informed a
 day-care provider that his stepfather had sexually assaulted him.  After
 asking some further questions to confirm the boy's remarks, the teacher
 called the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), who sent
 an investigator to interview the boy.  A police detective, trained as a
 juvenile investigator, joined the SRS investigator and took notes at the
 interview.  The boy repeated his account of recent sexual contact between
 his stepfather and him, this time in greater detail.  That same afternoon,
 defendant was arrested and processed for sexual assault, the crime for which
 he was convicted approximately ten months later.
      Defendant first contends that the evidence does not support the court's
 determination that the statements were trustworthy.  See V.R.E. 804a(a)(4)
 (court must find that "the time, content and circumstances of the statements
 provide substantial indicia of trustworthiness").  Defendant failed to raise
 this argument in his motion in limine or at trial.  Further, he does not
 argue on appeal, nor do we conclude upon review of the record, that the
 court's determination as to the trustworthiness of the statements con-
 stituted plain error, if any error at all.  Therefore, we need not address
 this issue.  See State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 347-48,