Title: State v. Lemay

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Lemay (2004-493); 180 Vt. 133; 908 A.2d 430

2006 VT 76

[Filed 28-Jul-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 76

                                No. 2004-493


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

  Joseph Roger Lemay                             November Term, 2005


  John P. Wesley, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
    General, and Sara R. Parsowith, Legal Intern (On the Brief), Montpelier,
    for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   Defendant Joseph Roger Lemay appeals from his
  conviction on two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and
  one count of sexual assault.  Defendant argues that the trial court erred
  by allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony, and that the State failed to
  present sufficient evidence to support a conviction on the charge of sexual
  assault.  We hold that the court improperly allowed hearsay testimony, and
  we reverse and remand.

       ¶  2.  In October 2003, defendant was charged with two counts of lewd
  and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of sixteen.  The State
  alleged that on or about October 21, 2003, defendant grabbed the breasts of
  two girls, known as A.K. and B.S., both of whom were thirteen years old at
  the time of trial.  The State later added one count of sexual assault on a
  minor, alleging that defendant had also inserted his finger into A.K.'s
  vagina.  At the time of the incident, defendant was living with A.K.'s
  mother, A.K., and A.K.'s older brother in Bellows Falls, Vermont.  The four
  had moved to Bellows Falls from Manchester, New Hampshire, in July 2003.
  (FN1)  On the night of the incident, B.S., a friend of A.K. who lived
  nearby, came to A.K.'s house to spend the night.  At some point, defendant
  began wrestling with the two girls.  Several days later, A.K. told a
  neighborhood friend, Sara Campbell, Dawn Blanchard (Sara's mother), and
  Ilene Laurendeau (Sara's grandmother), that during this wrestling incident,
  defendant had touched her breasts and her vagina.  In a separate
  conversation, B.S. told her friend, Samantha Chiu, and Cynthia Chiu
  (Samantha's mother), that defendant had touched her breast while they were
  wrestling at A.K.'s house. 
               
       ¶  3.  A jury trial on all three charges began in August 2004.  At a
  pre-trial conference, the court asked the State and defense counsel whether
  there were hearsay problems with potential testimony from the friends and
  neighbors A.K. and B.S. had spoken to about the incident.  The State argued
  that the testimony of these witnesses was admissible under Vermont Rule of
  Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) as prior consistent statements for the purpose of
  rebutting the suggestion of recent fabrication.  Such a suggestion was
  present because defendant planned to argue that A.K. fabricated her charges
  of improper touching when her mother and defendant would not allow her to
  return to New Hampshire to celebrate Halloween.  Defense counsel questioned
  the timing of the statements, but the court concluded, "I'm not sure the
  timing here is critical under the rule."  Defense counsel responded, "[Y]ou
  may be right about that . . . .  I still think it's a hearsay problem but I
  can . . . understand the exception how it goes, so if it comes in, . . .
  I'll deal with it."  The court ruled that the statements were admissible
  under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), and instructed defense counsel that during the
  trial, he could preserve his hearsay objection by simply saying "hearsay"
  during the trial instead of repeating his timing argument at the bench. 

       ¶  4.  At trial, in addition to the testimony of A.K. and B.S., the
  State presented the testimony of Sara Campbell, Dawn Blanchard, Ilene
  Laurendeau, Samantha Chiu, and Cynthia Chiu as to statements A.K. and B.S.
  made to them.  Defense counsel objected to each witness's testimony by
  saying "hearsay" as instructed by the court, and the court overruled each
  objection.  At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted defendant on
  all three charges.

       ¶  5.  Defendant first contends the trial court erred by admitting the
  testimony of the five witnesses to whom A.K. and B.S. reported their
  allegations.  Defendant argues that the testimony of these witnesses was
  inadmissible hearsay because it did not meet the requirements of the prior
  consistent statement rule, and it did not fall under any hearsay exception. 
  We agree that the court should not have allowed this testimony, and we
  reverse defendant's conviction.
   
       ¶  6.  The State concedes that the statements at issue were hearsay
  testimony, and not prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). 
  Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the
  matter asserted.  State v. Carter, 164 Vt. 545, 549,