State of Maine v. Ross S. Adams, 214 A.3d 496

Victim (then 7) was forensically interviewed in Florida on October 20, 2014 after disclosing sexual abuse by Ross S. Adams that occurred in Maine from July–October 2014.
Adams was indicted and tried in Franklin County, Maine on one count of unlawful sexual contact (Class A).
At the 2018 jury trial the victim (then 11) testified but had limited memory of many incidents she had previously described in the 2014 interview.
The State sought to admit the videotaped forensic interview under the recorded recollection (past recollection recorded) hearsay exception, M.R. Evid. 803(5); the court admitted portions over Adams’s objection.
The recording was played for the jury while the victim remained outside; the victim later returned and was cross-examined about inconsistencies and her faded memory.
Jury convicted Adams; he appealed, arguing improper foundation for Rule 803(5) admission and a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation because his ability to cross-examine was impaired.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under M.R. Evid. 803(5) (recorded recollection)	State: recording qualifies because the victim once knew the matters, the interview was made while memory was fresh, and the recording accurately reflected her knowledge.	Adams: State failed to establish the Rule 803(5) foundational predicates (knowledge at time, freshness, and accuracy).	Court: Affirmed admission — sufficient (direct and circumstantial) evidence supported all three foundational elements; no clear error.
Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment)	State: victim testified at trial and was available for cross-examination; admission of prior recorded statements did not violate the Clause.	Adams: Victim’s limited memory at trial prevented "reasonable" cross-examination of her prior statements; interviewer absent so defendant couldn’t cross-examine interviewer’s methods.	Court: No violation — because the declarant testified and was subject to cross-examination, Confrontation Clause was satisfied; interviewer’s questions were non‑testimonial/contextual and that objection was not preserved.

State v. Cruthirds, 96 A.3d 80 (discusses standard of review for foundational findings and admissibility of recorded recollection)
State v. Gorman, 854 A.2d 1164 (treats recorded recollection foundations and Confrontation Clause issues when declarant testifies)
United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (explains receiving recordings into evidence and reading recorded recollections into the record)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (explains that Confrontation Clause does not guarantee full memory and requires only opportunity for effective cross-examination)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes testimonial statements/confrontation framework)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (defines testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause limits)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (discusses primary-purpose test for testimonial statements)