Opinion ID: 2058119
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Recorded Recollection

Text: Gardiner maintains that the trial justice committed reversible error when he excluded from evidence a document demonstrating that Jane previously had made false claims of abuse while she was at KG Ranch. When Jane arrived at KG Ranch, nurse Mendelsohn observed that Jane had bruises on her leg. However, a few days later, on September 18, 1995, Mendelsohn noted in a document that Jane claimed the bruises were the result of being kicked by Fugere, the KG Ranch manager. According to defendant, this document should have been admitted as a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence [9] because Mendelsohn was unable to recall the circumstances described in her notes, even after counsel attempted to refresh her recollection. Mendelsohn's notes stated as follows: While speaking with [Jane] today, she showed me a couple of bruises on her [left] calf and told me `Brenda kicked her.' However, these bruises were present the day she arrived and so noted on my intake assessment. At trial, Gardiner's attorney referenced Mendelsohn's notes during the following exchange: DEFENSE COUNSEL: Exactly what happened on 9-18? WITNESS: I don't recall. DEFENSE COUNSEL: You don't recall? WITNESS: No. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Do you recall, ma'am, writing in your notes that while speakingon September 18, 1995, that while speaking with [Jane] today, she showed me a couple of small bruises on her left calf and told me, quote, Brenda kicked her. Do you remember that? WITNESS: Correct. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Again, it's just WITNESS: It's just from the notes. I don't recall the actual situation. DEFENSE COUNSEL: You don't recall the following statement or sentence that you made, being that, however, these bruises were present the day she arrived and so noted on my intake assessment? PROSECUTOR: Objection. THE COURT: Basis? PROSECUTOR: The witness says she has knowledge of this. He's leading her, essentially. THE COURT: Are you offering this testimony on some exception to the hearsay rule, Mr. Lovoy [defense counsel]? DEFENSE COUNSEL: I attempted to refresh her recollection, so yes, I'm asking that this be entered as a full exhibit. THE COURT: She has no memory of the event independent of the writing, so you're not refreshing her recollection. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Right, so I'm asking this be admitted as a full exhibit. THE COURT: On what theory? DEFENSE COUNSEL: On the theory that this has now become the testimony. THE COURT: Approach. After a bench conference, Gardiner's attorney continued to cross-examine Mendelsohn: DEFENSE COUNSEL: So, ma'am, if I can go back to September 18, 1995, did not [Jane] say to you that Brenda [Fugere] had kicked her and showed you a bruise on her calf? Is that your WITNESS: Correct, just by my note and the reason I wrote the note was to substantiate that that was not the source of the bruise. After the jurors began their deliberations, they made a request to see the rest of exhibits. The trial justice informed them that they already had all the exhibits they were permitted to have. Gardiner urges, however, that Mendelsohn's notes should have been included as an exhibit, and that the trial justice's refusal to admit it was reversible error. Yet there is no indication in the record that the trial justice ever ruled that Mendelsohn's notes were inadmissible; essentially, there was no ruling. If such a ruling took place off the record, then Gardiner's attorney had the burden of objecting on the record to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Marr, 731 A.2d 690, 693-94 (R.I.1999) (noting issues not preserved by objection at trial are waived on appeal). He did not, and therefore we do not believe that defendant properly objected to the trial justice's ruling, or lack thereof. We appreciate that documentary evidence, which goes into the jury room during deliberations, is at least as powerful as testimonial evidence. However, the substance of Mendelsohn's notes, which show that Jane had a history of making false accusations, ultimately came into evidence through the witness's testimonyalong with an abundance of other evidence establishing Jane's propensity to make false accusations. Therefore, even if we rule that this issue properly was preserved for appeal, the trial justice's refusal to allow Mendelsohn's notes into evidence would constitute harmless error. See State v. Pena-Rojas, 822 A.2d 921, 924 (R.I.2003) (holding that even if trial justice improperly excluded evidence, such error was harmless in light of other evidence); State v. Poulin, 415 A.2d 1307, 1311-12 (R.I.1980) (noting that the cumulative nature of evidence rendered trial justice's ruling harmless).