Committee Weighs Expanding hearsay exception to include 13–15‑year‑olds in H 5

The House Judiciary Committee continued testimony on H 5 on Thursday, a bill that would expand the scope of Rule 804(a), a hearsay exception prosecutors use to admit certain out‑of‑court statements by young or otherwise vulnerable declarants. Supporters told the committee the change would provide corroborating evidence in cases involving young alleged victims; opponents said it risks unfairly tilting trials against defendants and stigmatizing people with mental illness.

Tom Zoney, identified in committee records as chief superior judge, told members the proposal is a policy decision but said he did not expect it to create "significant burdens on the court." "This bill is a policy bill," Zoney said, adding that courts would apply the Rule 804(a) criteria and related gatekeeping tests when deciding whether particular out‑of‑court statements may be admitted.

Kim McNaddis of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs said prosecutors rely on limited additional evidence in many child‑victim cases and that admitting prior disclosures can "add bricks to the wall" of a case so a child witness is not the lone source of proof. McNaddis described a common investigative path — disclosure to peers or teachers, a report to a guidance counselor, referral to DCF and an interview by police — and outlined the pretrial mechanics: prosecutors typically must file a motion to admit such statements well before trial and judges hold a hearing to test availability and trustworthiness.

"This exception evinces a strong legislative intention to safeguard the right of confrontation while at the same time curing the frequent problem of lack of corroboration," McNaddis said, and her office "highly supports" raising the age covered by 804(a) to include 13–15‑year‑olds. She also told members that protective measures such as in‑room video testimony exist under related rules for younger witnesses and that judges often reject statements found to be tainted by leading questioning.

Willa White, testifying for the civil‑rights organization Mad Freedom, urged the committee to remove the statute’s reference to "mental illness" and opposed expanding the age range. "I am not a child. I don't want to be treated like a child," White said, arguing the bill's language and statement of purpose risk treating an alleged victim as a proven "victim" and thereby "increase the odds of conviction." White contrasted Rule 804(a) with traditional hearsay exceptions (such as dying declarations or business records), saying 804(a) is status‑based rather than reliability‑based and that the statute's carve‑outs can carry stigma outside the courtroom.

Members pressed White on whether availability and the trustworthiness gate would screen problematic uses; she replied that those safeguards exist but said the inclusion of "mental illness" in the statute nonetheless carries social harms and that she would prefer the legislature remove that language and solicit further input from mental‑health advocates. Committee members acknowledged the point and asked staff to schedule additional testimony from the defender general and from mental‑health advocacy groups.

Hannah Marble, director of communications and legislative affairs at the Department for Children and Families (speaking for policy director Lindsay Baron), told the committee DCF has historically supported child‑hearsay legislation and "remains in support of such a bill," though she said the department had not completed a line‑by‑line review of the current H 5 language.

The committee did not take a vote. Members agreed to gather additional testimony — including from the defender general and mental‑health advocates mentioned by witnesses — and to review written testimony already on file from child‑advocacy centers and other organizations. The hearing will continue on a later date when those witnesses can appear.