green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
34.0 score
“nder v.r.e. 803(4) -unlike the corresponding federal rule-statements relating to the inception or cause of a condition or symptom are not admissible even if pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Donald L. Sweet, Jr. and Preston L. Sweet v. Roy A. St. Pierre and Catherine St. Pierre d/b/a Woodlands Farms
nder v.r.e. 803(4) -unlike the corresponding federal rule-statements relating to the inception or cause of a condition or symptom are not admissible even if pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Joshua Boyer
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 42 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1384 (1988) (quotations and brackets omitted). ¶ 29.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Groce
(2×)
This doctrine “recognizes that evidence that may be inadmissible for the prohibited purpose may be admitted for other permissible purposes.” State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hammond
State v. Roberts, 154 Vt. 59, 74 , 574 A.2d 1248, 1255 (1990) (citing State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 46 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1988), for its observation that “[t]he duty to exclude objectionable [testimony] lies squarely on the shoulders of defense counsel” (quotation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chickanosky v. Chickanosky
In Velardo , we explained that “[u]nder controlled circumstances, the evidence forming the basis of the expert’s opinion can be admissible on that ground even if it is otherwise inadmissible.” Id. (citing State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 48 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988), and Reporter’s Notes to 2004 Amendment, V.R.E. 703).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re E.T.
“Under [V.R.E.] 703, if an expert relies on the out-of-court statements of another in forming his or her opinion and if such statements are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field, then the statements — even if not independently admissible for their substance — will be admissible for the limited purpose of demonstrating the basis for the expert’s opinion.” State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 48 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Muhammad
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1385-86 (1988) (sanctioning State’s presentation of other bad acts in response to defense counsel’s impeachment of witness’s credibility “by painting an incomplete picture of unwarranted bias”); see also State v. Anderson, 2005 VT 17, ¶ 7 , 178 Vt. 467 , 868 A.2d 716 (mem.) (stating that review of trial court decision to admit evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b) is for abuse of discretion). ¶ 10.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Muhammad
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1385-86 (1988) (sanctioning State's presentation of other bad acts in response to defense counsel's impeachment of witness's credibility "by painting an incomplete picture of unwarranted bias"); see also State v. Anderson, 2005 VT 17, ¶ 7 , 178 Vt. 467 , 868 A.2d 716 (mem.) (stating that review of trial court decision to admit evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b) is for abuse of discretion). ¶ 10.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Malshuk
We have previously held that where defense counsel seeks to impeach a witness’s credibility “by painting an incomplete picture of unwarranted bias,” the State may complete the picture with “appropriate detail.” State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386 (1988); State v. Crannell, 170 Vt. 387, 406 , 750 A.2d 1002, 1017 (2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Oscarson
(2×)
See Fisher, 167 Vt. at 43-44 , 702 A.2d at 45-46 (no plain error in admitting expert testimony that children’s behavior was “suggestive of some direct trauma,” and that child’s demeanor “seemed extremely congruent with ... what she was saying”); State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 45 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386-87 (1988) (no plain error in admitting expert testimony that child’s consistent statements gave “a sense that what they are saying happened, happened”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Murphy
(2×)
Downs v. Downs, 150 Vt. 647, 647 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1382 (1988) (mem.) (no jurisdiction to issue an amended order after the decree had become absolute).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gannett Co., Inc. v. Kanaga
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. 0.59 Acres of Land, 9th Cir., 109 F.3d 1493, 1496-97 (1997); State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988) (interpreting an identical Vermont Rule of Evidence).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Crannell
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Although defendant claims that Rule 404 acts as an absolute bar to any evidence of prior bad acts, we have noted that “[t]he rule recognizes that evidence that may be inadmissible for the [purpose of showing propensity] may be admitted for other permissible purposes.” State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Melcher
For example, if during trial defense counsel attempted to impeach a victim by “painting an incomplete picture of unwarranted bias,” the State should not be precluded from presenting rebuttal evidence on redirect “to complete th[e] picture with appropriate detail.” State v. Recor, 549 A.2d 1382, 1386 (Vt. 1988).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Keus v. Brooks Drug, Inc.
(3×)
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 48 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gomes
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 46 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fortner v. State
(2×)
As the Vermont Supreme Court recognized: “[W]e must not create a license for the prosecutor to engage in ‘overkill’ nominally justified by the defendant’s actions in raising a line of questions.” State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Percy
Ordinarily, a balancing test is employed to decide speedy trial issues because “it is ‘impossible to determine with precision when the right [to speedy trial] has been denied.’ ” State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 42 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1384 (1988) (quoting Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 (1972)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Sims
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Calloway, 157 Vt. ___ , ___, 596 A.2d 368, 371 (1991); Ross, 152 Vt. at 467-70 , 568 A.2d at 338-40 ; State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 45-46 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386-87 (1988); State v. DeJoinville, 145 Vt. 603, 604-05 , 496 A.2d 173, 1974-75 (1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Neel v. Sun
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 49 , 549 A.2d 1382,1389 (1988) (objection on one ground does not preserve appeal on other grounds).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wheel
Cf. State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44-45 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1385 (1988) (following the defendant’s attempt on cross-examination to show bias of State’s witness, door was open for prosecutor to consider prior bad acts).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Brown
See State v. Valley, 153 Vt. 380, 397 , 571 A.2d 579, 588 (1989); State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 48 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988); see also V.R.E. 703.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gokey
(2×)
For this proposition, the State relies on State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 46-49 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1387-88 (1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Roberts
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 46 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1988).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ross
(4×)
Inasmuch as defendant did not object, however, he failed to preserve the issue for appeal, and we are bound to reverse only if we find that the trial court's failure to exclude the testimony sua sponte constituted plain error. [1] State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 46 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1988); State v. DeJoinville, 145 Vt. 603, 605 , 496 A.2d 173, 174-75 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Venman
To determine whether defendant’s speedy trial rights have been violated, we must analyze the circumstances of this case according to the stan *575 dards announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), and most recently by this Court in State v. Roy, 151 Vt. 17, 35-37 , 557 A.2d 884, 895-96 (1989); State v. Yudichak, 151 Vt. 400, 404-07 , 561 A.2d 407, 409-12 (1989); and State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 42-43 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1384-85 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Yudichak
See State v. Settle, 141 Vt. 58, 61 , 442 A.2d 1314, 1315 (1982) (we need not consider claims on appeal which are inadequately briefed). * “[F]our factors . . . are relevant in determining when such a denial has occurred: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, defendant’s assertion of his or her right, and prejudice to *405 the defendant.” State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 42 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1384 (1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re RM
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. ___ , ___, 549 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1988); State v. Gallagher, ___ Vt. ___, ____ (Vt.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re R.M.
State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 47 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1988); State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 349 , 554 A.2d 221, 226 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Larry L. Labrecque
See Recor, 150 Vt. at 42 , 549 A.2d at 1384 (stating that prejudice is most important factor).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jeffrey H. Young
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 43 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1385 (1988) (holding that delay of twelve months without objection weighed against defendant); Turner, 2013 VT 26, ¶ 11 (same); see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 (“We emphasize that failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.”). ¶ 19.
cited
Cited "see"
Velardo v. Ovitt
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 48 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988); Reporter’s Notes to 2004 Amendment, V.R.E. 703. ¶ 36.
cited
Cited "see"
Velardo v. Ovitt
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 48 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988); Reporter's Notes to 2004 Amendment, V.R.E. 703. ¶ 36.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sweet v. Roy
Only by learning defendants’ motives could the jury understand why they would engage in the conduct alleged by plaintiff: See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 43-44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1385-86 (1988) (in child sexual assault case, after defense brought out in cross-examination that victim hated defendant, prosecution allowed to show in redirect that hatred was motivated by fact that defendant sexually assaulted victim on an earlier occasion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Everett v. Town of Bristol
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 48-49 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1388 (1988); see also Fox v. McLain, 142 Vt. 11, 14 , 451 A.2d 1122, 1123 (1982) (underlying data may be developed after opinion is expressed on direct, cross, or redirect examination).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Lawton
(3×)
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386 (1988) (Rule 404(b) not license “for the prosecutor to engage in ‘overkill’ nominally justified by the defendant’s actions in raising a line of questions”).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Keith
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 42 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1384-85 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Derouchie
(2×)
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 47 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1988); State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 349 , 554 A.2d 221, 226 (1988); In re R.M., 150 Vt. 59, 65 , 549 A.2d 1050, 1054 (1988). *32 For purposes of analyzing defendant’s claim, we assume that the doctor’s testimony is “classic hearsay: testimony by one witness as to what some other person told him offered to evidence the fact asserted.” 1 State v. LaRose, 137 Vt. 531, 532 , 408 A.2d 651, 652 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Chenette
See State v. Recor, 150 Vt. 40, 44 , 549 A.2d 1382, 1386 (1988); State v. Parker, 149 Vt. 393, 396 , 545 A.2d 512, 514-15 (1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kevin A. DOWNS
v.
Susan A. DOWNS
v.
Susan A. DOWNS
86-095.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
Mar 10, 1988.
Allen, C.J., and Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Mahady.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Vermont (1)
Plaintiff appeals from a divorce decree. We reverse. The superior court issued an order granting the divorce, determining custody of the parties’ minor children and dividing the marital property. The order was issued February 19, 1985, with the decree to become absolute on March 19, 1985.
On May 6, 1985, the superior court granted defendant’s motion to reopen the record to introduce new evidence. The court then issued revised findings of fact, conclusions of law and order on January 13, 1986. Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal having to do with the amended order. We do not address the merits of plaintiff’s arguments because we conclude that the superior court had no jurisdiction to grant defendant’s motion and issue an amended order after the decree had become absolute.
15 V.S.A. § 554(b) provides in pertinent part that, “at any time before the decree becomes absolute . . . , the court may reopen the cause, hear additional testimony and make new decree therein.” Here, the superior court’s order granting defendant’s motion to reopen the record was issued after the decree became absolute. “[I]n order to alter or set aside a decree nisi under the statute, a hearing must be held and a new decree must be made before the nisi period expires.” Richwagen v. Richwagen, 149 Vt. 72, 75, 539 A.2d 540, 542 (1987) (citing Ford v. Ford, 125 Vt. 21, 24, 209 A.2d 316, 319 (1965)). Thus, the superior court’s jurisdiction on this matter was exhausted as of March 19, 1985, and the later order from which plaintiff appeals is a nullity. See Richwagen, 149 Vt. at 75, 539 A.2d at 542.
The judgment of January 13, 1986, is reversed; the court’s order of February 19, 1985, is reinstated.
Motion to reargue denied May 20, 1988.