Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Child Competency and Hearsay Statements

The first big decision out of the Ohio Supreme Court last week was State v. Muttart, a case in which the defendant had been convicted of three counts of raping his four-year daughter.  The trial court had allowed the doctors and nurses to testify to statements made to them by the daughter.  The appellate court had reversed one of the convictions, holding that before the hearsay statements could be admitted, the trial court had to determine that the child was a competent witness under Evidence Rule 601(A).

There was some merit to that argument; back in 1994, in State v. Said, the Supreme Court had held that a competency determination was necessary before statements could be admitted under Evid.R. 807, which establishes a broad exception for hearsay by a child in sex abuse cases.  The Court had also said, though, that admission of "excited utterances" by children didn't require a preliminary competency determination.  The question was whether these statements -- falling under the hearsay exception of statements made for purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis, under Evid.R. 803(4) -- were closer to excited utterances or to the 807 statements.

When I'd previewed the case after oral argument in May, I'd said, "Given the language in the 1994 decision, I think the Court's going to be hard-pressed to distinguish 807 statements from those made under 803(4)."  Yeah, right.  In unanimously reversing the court of appeals, the Supreme Court not only had no trouble distinguishing statements under the two rules, but gave some reason to suspect that if it had to do Said over again, it'd come to a different conclusion. 

All is not lost, however.  Even if the statement was made for purposes of medical treatment and diagnosis, that doesn't mean admission under 803(4) a foregone conclusion; the trial court still has to determine whether it's reliable.  The Court gives a helpful list:

The trial court's considerations of the purpose of the child's statements will depend on the facts of the particular case. At a minimum, we believe that a nonexhaustive list of considerations includes (1) whether the child was questioned in a leading or suggestive manner, (2) whether there is a motive to fabricate, such as a pending legal proceeding such as a "bitter custody battle," and (3) whether the child understood the need to tell the physician the truth. In addition, the court may be guided by the age of the child making the statements, which might suggest the absence or presence of an ability to fabricate, and the consistency of her declarations.  In addition, the court should be aware of the manner in which a physician or other medical provider elicited or pursued a disclosure of abuse by a child victim, as shown by evidence of the proper protocol for interviewing children alleging sexual abuse.

That's a lot of "in additions" there, but it's helpful to have on hand so that you can persuade a trial judge that admission isn't automatic.

The other case yesterday was State v. Geeslin, which concerns the due process implications of police destruction of evidence.  We'll delve into that tomorrow.  See you then.

Search

Recent Entries

  • March 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Pro se motions, pro se defendants, and advice for deadbeat dads
  • March 27, 2017
    Case Update
    Gorsuch's embarrassing day, upcoming oral arguments in SCOTUS
  • March 20, 2017
    Taking time off
    I'm taking the week off. Have a major brief due on Thursday, plus a trial in Federal court starting next Monday. Plus, I'm pretty sure that Obama wiretapped me, too, so I'm working on getting to the bottom of that....
  • March 17, 2017
    What's Up with the 8th?
    The 8th District cases come out every Thursday. By about ten o'clock in the morning, the court will have posted the "weekly decision list" on its web site. It will give a summary of the case, usually in a sentence...
  • March 14, 2017
    Rippo and Pena-Rodriguez
    SCOTUS issues decisions on judicial recusal and biased jurors
  • March 13, 2017
    Case Update
    A SCOTUS decision on career offenders, and appellate cases on what a judge can consider in sentencing, and untimely motions to suppress
  • March 9, 2017
    A switch in time
    The court reverses itself in Gonzalez
  • March 8, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    More sentencing stories, and the right way to handle an Anders brief
  • March 7, 2017
    Case Update
    Knock and announce and the Ohio Constitution, and Anders briefs.
  • March 6, 2017
    Never mind
    The Ohio Supreme Court reverses Gonzalez.