not differentiate between those recounted during another witness’s testimony and those replayed on videotape. We have upheld the admission of tape-recorded and videotaped evidence showing interviews with child victims, including both questions and answers, all necessarily conducted out of court and technically hearsay, but always subject to the trial court’s initial assessment of the factors set forth in Rule 804a. Most recently, in State v. Spooner, we upheld a trial court’s admission of the minor victim’s recorded out-of-court statements in the form of an interview by a police officer and a DCP worker that the State offered, in part, to bolster the victim’s testimony. 2010 VT 75, ¶ 17, 188 Vt. 356, 8 A.3d 469; see also State v. LaBounty, 168 Vt. 129, 136-39, 716 A.2d 1, 6-8 (1998) (<HOLDING>); State v. Blackburn, 162 Vt. 21, 25, 643 A.2d
holding that agency reports ofgovernment investigations containing witness interviews were not admissible under public records exception because statements in reports were not based upon personal knowledge of government agent holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim holding that evidence of uncharged incest with the same victim is admissible to illustrate the relationship existing between the defendant and the victim holding that taperecorded interviews with child victim were admissible