The Vermont Supreme Court reversed a criminal conviction for lewd conduct with a child, holding that the trial court violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by permitting the child complainant to testify outside the defendant's presence.
In *State v. Anna Sylvester* (Vt. 2025), the high court ruled that the trial court's use of Vermont Rule of Evidence 807 to allow remote testimony from a six-year-old witness violated fundamental constitutional protections. The decision highlights ongoing tensions between protecting vulnerable child witnesses and preserving defendants' due process rights in sexual abuse cases.
Anna Sylvester was charged in December 2017 with one count of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child. According to the charging affidavit, the complainant A.G., who was six years old at the time, reported to her mother in October 2017 that Sylvester had touched her vaginal area. Sylvester was dating the child's father when the alleged incident occurred.
Prior to trial, the Superior Court for Orleans County granted two significant motions that would shape the proceedings. First, the court allowed the State to admit statements A.G. made during an October 2017 police interview. Second, the court granted Sylvester's motion requiring A.G. to testify at trial.
The case took a critical turn in November 2019 when the State moved to allow A.G. to testify outside Sylvester's physical presence under Rule 807. This Vermont evidence rule permits alternative testimony procedures in certain circumstances involving child witnesses. The trial court held a hearing on this motion in October, though the Vermont Supreme Court opinion does not detail the specific findings that led to the trial court's decision to grant the State's request.
Rule 807 represents Vermont's attempt to balance the trauma that child witnesses may experience when confronting alleged abusers with the fundamental right of defendants to face their accusers. The rule allows courts to permit alternative testimony arrangements when certain conditions are met, typically involving a showing that the child would suffer psychological harm from testifying in the defendant's presence.
Sylvester challenged her conviction on appeal, arguing that the remote testimony procedure violated her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Confrontation Clause of the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" them. This right has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require face-to-face confrontation in most circumstances, though limited exceptions exist.
Writing for the Vermont Supreme Court, Justice Eaton agreed with Sylvester's constitutional challenge. The court held that permitting A.G. to testify outside the defendant's presence violated Sylvester's confrontation rights. The opinion represents a significant ruling on the application of federal constitutional protections in state court proceedings involving child witnesses.
The decision reflects the ongoing challenge courts face when balancing competing interests in child sexual abuse cases. On one side, prosecutors and child advocates argue that requiring young victims to testify in the presence of their alleged abusers can cause additional trauma and may prevent children from providing truthful testimony. On the other side, defense attorneys and constitutional scholars emphasize that the right to confrontation represents a fundamental protection against wrongful conviction.
The Vermont Supreme Court's ruling does not end Sylvester's case. The court reversed the conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial. This means prosecutors can pursue the charges again, but they must do so without relying on testimony procedures that violate confrontation rights. The State will need to determine whether it can proceed with the case under constitutional constraints.
The case was handled by several attorneys representing both sides. Deputy State's Attorney Evan Meenan represented the State in the appeal, while Appellate Defender A. Alexander Donn from the office of Defender General Matthew Valerio represented Sylvester. The proceedings involved multiple judges at the trial level, with Judge Lisa Warren handling the Rule 807 motion and Judge Justin P. Jiron presiding over a motion for new trial.
The Vermont Supreme Court panel included Chief Justice Reiber and Justices Eaton, Cohen, and Waples, along with specially assigned Superior Court Justice Treadwell. Justice Eaton authored the majority opinion reversing the conviction.
This decision may influence how Vermont courts handle similar cases involving child witnesses in the future. While the court recognized the legitimate concerns about protecting child witnesses from trauma, it emphasized that constitutional protections for defendants cannot be compromised, even in emotionally charged cases involving alleged crimes against children.
The ruling comes as courts nationwide continue to grapple with how to implement child protection measures while maintaining constitutional safeguards. The decision reinforces that while states have significant latitude in crafting procedures to protect child witnesses, those procedures must still comply with federal constitutional requirements, particularly the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.