Opinion ID: 1768711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the trial court err in excluding Glenn Marshall's purported prior inconsistent statement?

Text: ¶ 20. During the early morning hours of June 6, 2000, State's witness Glenn Marshall (Glenn), who had been shot in the hip, was treated by Dr. William M. Barr. Dr. Barr's medical record reported that Glenn stated his brother Tracy Marshall (Tracy) had gone on a rampage. When Glenn took the stand to testify, defense counsel inquired about Glenn having told Dr. Barr about the rampage. Glenn repeatedly denied making the statement. Defense counsel sought to introduce the medical record and have Glenn read from it. The State objected on the basis of hearsay, untrustworthiness, and lack of proper predicate for the entry of a medical record/prior inconsistent statement. The judge denied the record's admission. ¶ 21. Jones argues that the trial court erred by not admitting this as a prior inconsistent statement or under the medical records exception the rule against hearsay. Specifically, he argues that the refusal of the court to allow the statement hindered his ability to impeach Glenn's credibility, which would have assisted Jones's self-defense claim. All the impeachment required was for the defense to hand Dr. Barr's report to Glenn and ask Glenn to either deny or admit whether the report correctly reflected his statement to Dr. Barr. Upon examination of the record we conclude that the judge could have allowed the record for impeachment purposes rather than as substantive evidence. ¶ 22. Jones argues that the medical report prepared by Dr. Barr qualifies as a hearsay exception under Mississippi Rules of Evidence 803(4) regarding Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment; therefore under Rule 806, Glenn's statements can be used to attack his credibility as they are prior inconsistent statements. As will be explained, this argument must fail. ¶ 23. Without question, under Rule 801, defining hearsay, the statements made by Glenn to Dr. Barr and noted in the medical records are hearsay statements which require an exception. Rule 803(4) provides a hearsay exception for Statements for Purpose of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. Rule 803(4) specifically provides that: Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, regardless of to whom the statements are made, or when the statements are made, if the court, in its discretion, affirmatively finds that the proffered statements were made under circumstances substantially indicating their trustworthiness. For purposes of this rule, the term medical refers to emotional and mental health as well as physical health ... M.R.E. 803(4) (emphasis added). The comment to Rule 803(4) provides, in relevant part, that: Rule 803(4) represents a deviation from previous Mississippi practice in three significant ways. First, Rule 803(4) permits statements of past symptoms as well as present symptoms. Second, the rule allows for statements which relate to the source or cause of the medical problem whereas Mississippi courts formerly disallowed such statements. See Field v. State, 57 Miss. 474 (1879) and Mississippi Cent. R.R.Co. v. Turnage, 95 Miss. 854, 49 So. 840 (1909), for pre-rule Mississippi law. While statements about cause are permissible, statements concerning fault are still excluded. M.R.E. 803 cmt. (emphasis added). As is clearly stated in the Comment, statements made about cause are permissible, [however] statements concerning fault are still excluded. M.R.E. 803 cmt. (emphasis added). The statement made by Glenn to Dr. Barr regarding Tracy's rampage concerns fault and is not a statement for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. As such, these statements were correctly excluded as hearsay. ¶ 24. Furthermore, even if we were to assume that Dr. Barr's medical report qualified under Rule 803(4) as a hearsay exception, Rule 803(4) still provides the trial judge with considerable discretion in its admissibility. The relevant part of Rule 803(4) provides that regardless of to whom the statements are made, or when the statements are made, if the court, in its discretion, affirmatively finds that the proffered statements were made under circumstances substantially indicating their untrustworthiness, then the trial judge may still exclude the statements. M.R.E. 803(4). The Comment to Rule 803 notes that the rule, by requiring the judge to find trustworthiness, gives the trial judge greater discretion, in determining the admissibility of statements made during medical treatment. M.R.E. 803 cmt. ¶ 25. Lastly, under Rule 806 concerning the admissibility of a hearsay statement as a prior inconsistent statement for the purposes of attacking a witnesses credibility, does not qualify the medical report containing Glenn's statements as admissible. Under Rule 805 not only must Dr. Barr's report containing Glenn's statement meet a hearsay exception; but also Glenn's statement therein must also meet a hearsay exception. As already discussed above, Dr. Barr's medical report does not meet the hearsay exception provided in Rule 803(4) or any other hearsay exception contained in the Rules of Evidence. As such, without even getting to whether Glenn's statement qualifies within a hearsay exception; we can dispose of Jones's argument on this issue since Dr. Barr's report does not qualify under a hearsay exception. ¶ 26. For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court on this issue.