## Facts

- Leo Paul Pratt II lived with his wife and his niece, T.B., who was twelve years old.
- On November 14, 2012, T.B. was alone at home with Pratt after school.
- The State’s evidence indicated Pratt asked T.B. to sexually touch him, slapped her when she refused, forced her hand down his pants, and showed her a sexual video on his cell phone.
- The evidence further indicated Pratt forced sexual contact, including oral sex performed on T.B. and forced oral sex performed by T.B. on Pratt.
- That night, T.B. wrote a letter describing the assault and stating she did not feel safe in the home.
- The next morning, T.B. showed the letter to a friend and then gave it to a school vice principal, prompting involvement by law enforcement and child-protection authorities.
- Pratt was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child under thirteen (13 V.S.A. § 3253(a)(8)) and convicted after a jury trial.
- Before trial, the court admitted T.B.’s letter under V.R.E. 804a and allowed the State’s digital-forensics expert to testify about extraction of data from Pratt’s cell phone using Cellebrite software.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting T.B.’s written letter under V.R.E. 804a because the State allegedly failed to show that the time, content, and circumstances provided substantial indicia of trustworthiness.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under V.R.E. 702 by admitting expert testimony based on Cellebrite extraction where the expert could not explain the proprietary programming or provide a precise error rate.
3. Whether the trial court coerced a guilty verdict through supplemental instructions and its management of jury deliberations.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the letter was properly admitted under V.R.E. 804a because the surrounding circumstances supported a finding of substantial indicia of trustworthiness.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the Cellebrite-based expert testimony under V.R.E. 702.
- The court held the trial court’s communications and supplemental instructions during deliberations were not coercive.

## Legal Principles

- Under V.R.E. 804a, a child’s out-of-court statement may be admitted when the time, content, and circumstances provide substantial indicia of trustworthiness; immediacy, spontaneity, and lack of coaching may support trustworthiness findings.
- Appellate review of V.R.E. 804a trustworthiness determinations is deferential; the question is whether the trial court acted within its discretion on the evidentiary record.
- Under V.R.E. 702, expert testimony is admissible when the expert is qualified, the testimony assists the factfinder, and the methodology is sufficiently reliable under the circumstances.
- Reliability under V.R.E. 702 does not require the expert to know proprietary source code or quantify a precise error rate where other evidence supports reliability, including training, experience, field acceptance, peer review/testing practices, and cross-checking or validation steps.
- Claims of coercive jury instructions are evaluated in context; instructions are improper if they pressure jurors to abandon sincerely held views, but are permissible if they emphasize continued deliberation without compromising individual judgment.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Pratt’s aggravated sexual assault conviction, holding that the trial court permissibly admitted the child victim’s contemporaneous letter under V.R.E. 804a, properly allowed digital-forensics expert testimony based on Cellebrite extraction under V.R.E. 702, and did not coerce the jury through its deliberation-related instructions.


State v. Pratt, 128 A.3d 883 (Vt. 2015)