Opinion ID: 2275877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inadmissible Hearsay/Bolstering

Text: Appellant contends that the repeated use of inadmissible hearsay, through the testimony of Detective Slack and Dr. Hayden, constitutes palpable error requiring reversal. Appellant concedes that these assignments of error are unpreserved, as trial counsel failed to object, and requests review per RCr 10.26. Detective Bruce Slack of the Kentucky State Police was called as the last Commonwealth's witness. Slack testified that he took a taped statement from S.A. on January 28, 2001. The prosecutor asked, Was her testimony [at trial] consistent with the statement that she gave to you? Detective Slack responded that it was. On re-direct, the prosecutor asked specifically about Detective Slack's interview with S.A., including the following: Q. Did you ask her the question, did the defendant ever use condoms? Do you recall if she responded, no, he never did? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall her making the statement that he told me I will kill you and he said to my mom, if you ever leave me, I will kill you? And then [S.A.] saying that the defendant said that to her and her mother Billie Jo White? A. Yes, sir. . . . . Q. [S.A.] said that she had her last sexual contact that Thursday night, is that correct, sir? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall that she said he forces her, speaking in relation to her mother, he forces her to do things? He gets drunk, he makes mom do things he makes me do. And then she said, have sex with me. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall, related to alcohol, [S.A.] said that he tricked me into drinking gin and orange juice? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall [S.A.] said that he tells me I'm really good at it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall . . . the question was asked, How many times did you have intercourse? And she said, More than I can count. And then you in fact were the one that prodded her to assign a number to this. Is that correct? A: That's correct, sir. Q: You prodded her with 200, and then you said 300 or 400, and finally she adopted the 300 to 400. Is that an accurate assessment, sir? A: Yes, sir. Q: The question was asked, related to oral sex, and she responded, He makes me do it every day of the week. Then, the question was asked, How often was that? And she said, Four days a week. Is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Did she tell you that she felt safer with her natural father, sir? A: Yes, sir. Q: Then again she was asked questions related to her little brother, and the questions were asked, What does he do physically to [W.A.]? She said, to both of us, he hits us, he chokes us, he kicks us. . . . when he has no beer or weed . . . and when he does have beer and weed? Do you recall her saying that? A: Yes, sir. . . . . Q: Do you recall that she told you that at 9 years of age, her mother found blood in her panties, and her mother asked me about it, and I told her, I don't know anything about it. Do you recall that statement? A: Yes, sir. While her mother was doing the laundry. . . . [4] . . . . Q: Did she ever say anything to you about why she would make this up and lie? A: No, sir. She did not. She was very much afraid, scared, of what the outcome was going to be. . . . We agree with Appellant that the admission of this testimony was error. There is no hearsay exception for statements made by an alleged victim of sexual abuse to a police detective. Smith v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 514, 516-17 (Ky.1995) (The rationale behind prohibiting hearsay testimony in situations involving social workers is applicable to the case of a police detective relating prior statements by an alleged victim.). See also Bussey v. Commonwealth, 797 S.W.2d 483, 484-85 (Ky.1990); Belt v. Commonwealth, 2 S.W.3d 790, 792 (Ky.App.1999). On appeal, the Commonwealth does not attempt to justify the admission of this testimony under any hearsay exception, [5] but simply urges this court to hold any error in its admission harmless. Because the error is unpreserved, our review is limited to one for palpable error. RCr 10.26. In order to demonstrate an error rises to the level of a palpable error, the party claiming palpable error must show a `probability of a different result or [an] error so fundamental as to threaten a defendant's entitlement to due process of law.' Allen v. Commonwealth, 286 S.W.3d 221, 226 (Ky.2009) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006)). This Court has consistently recognized that this type of hearsay testimony is highly prejudicial, and unfairly bolsters the credibility of the alleged victim. See Smith, 920 S.W.2d at 516-17 (reversible error where police detective permitted to testify about statements made to him by alleged victim of sexual abuse); Bussey, 797 S.W.2d at 484-85 (reversible error where four law enforcement officials were permitted to repeat what alleged sexual abuse victim told them); Belt, 2 S.W.3d at 792 (reversible error where police detective read narrative from uniform citation containing alleged sexual assault victim's allegations). S.A.'s in-court and out-of-court statements were the only evidence linking Appellant to the evidence of sexual contact. Hence, S.A.'s credibility was crucial to the Commonwealth's case. The extensive hearsay by Detective Slack was highly prejudicial and served only to unfairly bolster S.A.'s credibility. In light of the above, we conclude the admission of this testimony, particularly when combined with the inadmissible hearsay repeated by Dr. Hayden (as will be discussed forthcoming), rises to the level of palpable error. Allen, 286 S.W.3d at 226. Dr. Patrick Hayden interviewed and examined S.A. at the Barren River Area Child Advocacy Center on March 29, 2001, two months after the allegations were reported. At trial, Dr. Hayden read extensively from his interview with S.A., and, in doing so, identified Appellant as the perpetrator and basically repeated the allegations to which S.A. had already testified. In this regard, Dr. Hayden testified, without objection, that S.A. told him that, on the evening of January 28, 2001, she had reported to her stepmother that she had been repeatedly raped over a number of years by her mother's boyfriend. Dr. Hayden then testified at length as to various acts of oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse, and sexual touching, which S.A. had related to him. Dr. Hayden testified that S.A. told him that the sexual abuse continued over the years until she got to the point of where she was tired of him (Appellant) touching her and forcing her to have sex, until one weekend when she was visiting her father she got up the nerve to tell her stepsister who told her to tell her stepmother. Dr. Hayden further testified that S.A. told him that Appellant would beat, kick, hit, and slap her, and that she saw him hit and punch her stepbrother and stepsister [6] who lived with her. As to his physical findings, Dr. Hayden testified that he found notching of S.A.'s hymen and scarring which indicated vaginal penetration. He did not find any physical signs of anal penetration. Dr. Hayden was asked on both direct and cross-examination to read from a report from Kosair Hospital, where S.A. was examined on January 28, 2001, the day she reported the allegations. The Kosair report stated that no evidence of vaginal or anal tearing or other evidence of trauma was found. As to the discrepancy between his findings and those from Kosair, Dr. Hayden testified that while he performed an extensive examination, he could not tell from the report what type of exam was performed at Kosair. [7] On appeal, Appellant contends that much of the testimony by Dr. Hayden as to his interview with S.A. was inadmissible under KRE 803(4) and constitutes palpable error. We agree. First, Dr. Hayden's repetition of S.A.'s identification of Appellant as the perpetrator was error. [8] It is well settled that the identity of the perpetrator is rarely, if ever, pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment. Garrett v. Commonwealth, 48 S.W.3d 6, 11-12 (Ky. 2001). This principle was recently reaffirmed by this Court in Colvard v. Commonwealth, 309 S.W.3d 239 (Ky.2010). This case falls squarely under the general rule. Additionally, while S.A.'s statements to Dr. Hayden describing what was done to her physically are admissible under KRE 803(4), her statements regarding whom she told, and why, are not pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment, and do not qualify for admission under this exception. [9] Appellant concedes that this error was unpreserved, as trial counsel offered no objections, and requests this court review for palpable error per RCr 10.26. Dr. Hayden's testimony not only named Appellant as the perpetrator, but went on to basically repeat the allegations to which S.A. had already testified, including statements that had no relevance to medical diagnosis and treatment (identity notwithstanding). The extremely prejudicial nature of this type of hearsay, when repeated by a professional, is well recognized. Sharp v. Commonwealth, 849 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Ky.1993). See also Colvard, 309 S.W.3d at 247 (recognizing extreme prejudice and reversible error due to physician's testimony repeating hearsay of alleged victim of sexual abuse identifying defendant as alleged perpetrator). In the present case, the extensive, inadmissible hearsay testimony by Dr. Hayden was highly prejudicial and unfairly bolstered the credibility of S.A. As previously discussed, S.A.'s credibility was crucial to the Commonwealth's case. We conclude that the cumulative, if not individual, error in the admission of the extensive and highly prejudicial hearsay by Dr. Hayden and Detective Slack unfairly bolstered the credibility of S.A. to the extent as to rise to the level of palpable error. RCr 10.26. Accordingly, the case must be reversed and remanded for retrial.