State v. LaGore: Vermont Supreme Court Tightens Relevance Standard for Admitting a Child-Victim’s Prior Allegations Against Third Parties

Introduction

In State v. Andy LaGore, 2025 VT 41, the Vermont Supreme Court addressed whether a criminal defendant in a child-sexual-abuse prosecution may introduce evidence of the child’s earlier, uncharged report of inappropriate touching by a different adult. The defendant, Andy LaGore, was convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with his six-year-old step-daughter, L.F. On appeal he contended that exclusion of L.F.’s 2016 statements—implicating her biological father, Jordan—violated both the Vermont and United States Confrontation Clauses and deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.

The key issue: When, if ever, are a child-complainant’s prior allegations against someone else relevant and admissible to show confusion or misidentification in the present case? The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the 2016 statements irrelevant because they failed to demonstrate any confusion by L.F. as to the identity of the 2018 perpetrator. The decision establishes a clearer, stricter relevance threshold under Vermont law for such evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

• The trial court excluded the 2016 Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) interview in which four-year-old L.F. said her biological father touched her “nakey” while she was on the toilet.
• The defense argued the earlier allegation was either demonstrably false or, at minimum, created a reasonable inference that L.F. confused the two men, undermining her 2018 identification of LaGore.
• The Supreme Court held:
  • The evidence was properly excluded because it was not relevant—it did not tend to show that L.F. confused the identities of her abusers.
  • Absent relevance, there is no Confrontation Clause violation; constitutional rights do not override the rules of evidence.
  • The trial court afforded defendant ample opportunity to impeach L.F.’s credibility through other inconsistencies.
• Conviction affirmed; no constitutional analysis required once relevance failed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) & Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006)
   Both cases articulate the broad constitutional guarantee that defendants receive “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” LaGore invoked these decisions to argue the exclusion violated due process.
2. State v. Forty, 2009 VT 118, ¶ 24; State v. Godfrey, 2010 VT 29, ¶ 32; and State v. Corliss, 168 Vt. 333 (1998)
   These Vermont cases hold that the Confrontation Clause applies only to evidence that is otherwise admissible under standard evidentiary rules. The Court relied heavily on this principle to dispel the notion that constitutional rights trump foundational requirements such as relevance.
3. State v. Raymond, 148 Vt. 617 (1987) & Reporter’s Notes to V.R.E. 401
   Provide the analytical framework for determining relevance: evidence must do more than hold logical probative value—it must be probative of the specific proposition for which it is offered and not be too remote in time or circumstance. LaGore’s evidence failed at this exact juncture.
4. Brown v. State, 2018 VT 1; State v. Bergquist, 2019 VT 17; State v. Larkin, 2018 VT 16
   Supply the abuse-of-discretion standard that appellate courts use to review evidentiary rulings. By reiterated reference, the Supreme Court reminded counsel that the burden rests on the defendant to establish clear error.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court proceeded in two deliberate stages:

1. Relevance Determination (V.R.E. 401 & 402)
   The 2016 statement would be relevant only if it had “any tendency” to show confusion about the perpetrator’s identity in 2018. After parsing the record, the Court concluded:
   • No evidence suggested L.F. ever vacillated between blaming Andy and Jordan.
   • “Nakey” language overlap was unsurprising and did not point to confusion.
   • Temporal misconceptions (e.g., saying the assault was “last night”) pertained to timing, not identification.
   • Foster mother’s confusion could not be imputed to L.F.
   Therefore, the proffered evidence lacked the necessary linkage.
2. Constitutional Overlay
   Because the evidence failed the relevance test, constitutional claims evaporated. The Court reiterated that the Sixth Amendment cannot compel admission of inadmissible evidence. This kept the analysis squarely within state evidentiary doctrine, avoiding a broader confrontation-clause debate.

3. Impact of the Decision

This ruling is significant for Vermont criminal practice, particularly in child-sexual-abuse cases:

• Higher Evidentiary Hurdle: Defendants may not introduce a child’s prior allegations against someone else unless they can specifically show relevance to misidentification or fabrication. Mere similarity of terminology or proximity in time is insufficient.
• Clarification of False-Allegation Exception: 13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3)(C) (Rape Shield) already allows evidence of “past false allegations.” LaGore clarifies that if the defendant cannot first demonstrate falsity—or at least a strong inference of confusion—Rule 401 bars admission regardless of Rape Shield arguments.
• Trial Strategy Shift: Defense counsel may need to gather stronger corroboration (e.g., forensic experts, disclosures of recantation, or direct contradictions) before seeking admission of third-party allegations.
• Judicial Efficiency & Child Protection: The decision re-empowers trial courts to limit collateral mini-trials about unrelated conduct, sparing child witnesses additional exposure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Relevance (V.R.E. 401)

Evidence is relevant only if it helps prove or disprove a material fact in the case. It is not enough that evidence be “interesting” or “logically connected” in the abstract.

Confrontation Clause

Part of the Sixth Amendment guaranteeing the accused the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. However, it does not override the rules of evidence; irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible material may still be excluded.

Rape Shield Statute

13 V.S.A. § 3255 generally prohibits evidence about a complainant’s past sexual conduct unless a specific statutory exception applies (e.g., proven false allegations).

Abuse of Discretion Review

Appellate courts respect trial judges’ evidentiary decisions unless those decisions are clearly unreasonable or based on an erroneous view of the law.

Conclusion

State v. LaGore fortifies the gatekeeping role of relevance in Vermont sexual-abuse trials. The Court makes plain that:

• Before constitutional rights to confrontation or to present a defense are engaged, the evidence at issue must first satisfy basic evidentiary admissibility, starting with relevance.
• A child complainant’s prior allegations against a different adult are not inherently admissible to impeach credibility; the proponent must demonstrably link those allegations to misidentification or falsity in the current charge.
• Trial courts retain broad discretion grounded in “common sense and experience” to police that linkage, and appellate courts will rarely second-guess such judgments absent manifest error.

For practitioners, the decision demands meticulous pre-trial investigation and well-developed proffers when seeking to admit prior allegations. For judges, it offers a clear framework to evaluate such requests without conflating evidentiary and constitutional standards. Ultimately, LaGore reinforces a balanced approach: preserving the accused’s right to a fair trial while shielding child victims from unnecessary retraumatization through irrelevant collateral inquiries.