State v. Hoch, 18 A.3d 562

Hoch was convicted of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 16 under 13 V.S.A. § 2602(a)(1) for touching M.C.'s buttocks with intent to gratify sexual desires.
M.C. was six or seven years old at the time; she later testified that Hoch touched her in private places and gave her money.
M.C.'s mother, her mother's boyfriend, and a DCF employee testified; the mother identified Hoch as 'Chris' and described Hoch's visits to the home.
A videotape of a joint DCF/police interview with M.C. was admitted after M.C. testified, and Hoch did not object to its admission at trial.
Hoch moved for judgment of acquittal after the State's case and again after closing arguments, arguing insufficient evidence of identity and lewd intent.
The trial court denied the motions and the jury returned a guilty verdict; Hoch appeals asserting evidentiary and constitutional errors and sufficiency challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of the videotaped interview under Rule 804A and Confrontation Clause	Hoch argues the tape contains hearsay and violates confrontation rights.	Hoch contends the tape should be excluded as hearsay and as cross-examination would be unavailable for testimonial statements.	No reversible error; tape admitted properly under Rule 804A and no Confrontation Clause violation.
Sufficiency of evidence identifying Hoch as the actor	Sufficient identification through victim and corroborating witnesses.	Insufficient evidence that Hoch was the perpetrator.	Evidence adequate to identify Hoch as the author of the touching.
Sufficiency of evidence of lewd intent	Circumstances show intentional lewd touching to satisfy sexual desires.	Insufficient proof of lewd intent beyond the charged act.	Evidence supports lewd intent and act under 13 V.S.A. § 2602(a)(1).

State v. Spooner, 188 Vt. (2010 VT 75) (admission of child-victim interview recorded out of court under 804A)
State v. LaBounty, 168 Vt. 129 (1998) (tape-recorded interviews with child victims admissible)
State v. Kerr, 143 Vt. 597 (1983) (fact-finder may draw reasonable inferences from circumstances)
State v. Findlay, 171 Vt. 594 (2000) (reliability and identification considerations in similar contexts)
State v. Wiley, 181 Vt. 300 (2007) (in-court identification and corroborating testimony affect sufficiency questions)
State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341 (1988) (confrontation rights where victim available for recall)
State v. Squiers, 179 Vt. 388 (2006) (definitions of lewd intent and circumstances to be considered)
State v. Desautels, 180 Vt. 189 (2006) (sufficiency standard — view evidence in light most favorable to State)