The House Judiciary Committee convened Thursday and took testimony on a bill to expand Vermont’s hearsay exception so that statements to certain witnesses by victims up to age 16 could be admitted in criminal cases.

Supporters, including law‑enforcement and child‑victim advocates, said the change would bring Vermont into line with many other states and help teens who are reluctant or retraumatized by courtroom testimony. "These cases are really hard to bring to prosecution," said Kelly Woodward, a longtime victim advocate now with the Northwest Unit for Special Investigations. "This bill...gives them some additional support so they feel more comfortable."

Opponents, led by Kate Lamson, a Bennington County public defender, urged caution. Lamson said the bill, as drafted, "does not meaningfully protect the age group that it is looking to protect" because Rule 807 and Vermont case law still require a child witness to be "available" for cross‑examination in many circumstances. "It chips away at one of our laws' foundational requirements, which is the right to confront your accuser," Lamson said.

Why it matters: witnesses told the committee that forensic interviews conducted at Child Advocacy Centers are trauma‑informed and often capture detailed accounts that can corroborate a later in‑court statement. Samantha Prince, director of outreach and advocacy for the Vermont Children's Alliance, said forensic interviews are "designed to be trauma informed" and allow children to present information in a protected manner. Advocates said admitting corroborating out‑of‑court disclosures from family members, counselors or forensic interviewers can reduce the pressure on a single child witness and improve jurors' understanding of the timeline of disclosures.

Legal and procedural questions dominated discussion. Lamson and several committee members debated how Vermont courts interpret "availability" under Rule 807, and Lamson cited recent Vermont precedent she said imposes a high standard for closed‑circuit or recorded testimony. Jennifer Coleman of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services urged the panel to focus on an existing disparity between deposition rules and hearsay exceptions for adolescents, which prompted the committee to examine aligning Rule 15 (depositions) and Rule 804(a) (hearsay reliability hearings).

Committee process: the chair said the committee will continue discussion and may hold a vote the following morning. Members asked whether a revised draft—one discussed informally to change the bill's effective date to July 1, 2027—would be available and whether additional testimony was needed on a separate item (H.545) concerning a gross‑negligence standard. The chair scheduled further testimony on H.545 at 2:30 p.m. the next day.

The hearing drew a mix of practitioner perspectives: law‑enforcement and victim‑services witnesses described practical benefits for victims, while defense counsel emphasized constitutional and evidentiary safeguards. The committee left the record open to written testimony and signaled it would weigh drafting changes before a possible vote.