Opinion ID: 1745172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Boy's Age

Text: The appellant contends that when the boy made his out-of-court statements accusing the appellant he was nine years old, but at the time of the trial he was ten. The appellant argues that A.R.E. 803 (25) (A) was designed to protect a young child from the trauma of a trial, and thus the critical age is the age of the child at the time of the trial rather than the age at the time the statement was made, and the rule thus does not permit the statements to be admitted. The birth certificate of the boy showed that his tenth birthday occurred May 3, 1985. His accusatory statements were given on April 27 and 30, 1985. His statements recanting the accusations occurred after May 3, 1985. The court ruled that it would be unfair to the appellant to exclude the boy's statements made after May 3, 1985, in the circumstances of this case, and he admitted both the accusatory statements and the recantations citing A.R.E. 803 (24.). Although the judge's ruling was probably not responsive to the appellant's objection, we find no error here. We have found no authority, and the appellant has cited none, supporting the appellant's interpretation of Rule 803 (25) (A) as meaning that the declarant must be less than ten years old at the time of the trial as opposed to the time the statement was made. The rule refers to a statement made by a child under ten years as being admissible. Our view is that had the authors of the Rule meant to restrict it to a statement made by a child under ten years of age at the time of the trial they would have said so. It seems clear to us that the Rule permits the statements to be admitted in this case because they were made by a child under ten years. Reversed. PURTLE and DUDLEY, JJ., concur. HAYS, J., dissents.