error for the trial court to admit the recorded statements because defense counsel did not cross-examine T.S. following their admission. Regarding this claim of error, defendant does not take issue with the State playing the recorded statements during its own ease-in-chief. Defendant does, however, take issue with the fact that he was “not permitted” to recall T.S. Defendant first alleges violations of the Vermont Rules of Evidence. Defendant maintains that Rule 804a(a)(3) requires the child declarant to be available to testify. Defendant also cites Rule 806 for the proposition that if a hearsay statement is admitted, and the party against whom the statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, he may examine the declarant “as if under c 4 Vt. 251, 958 A.2d 1179 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 20. Here, the trial court expressed concern
holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice holding unrecorded objection made at bench did not preserve error regarding admission of evidence