Opinion ID: 2103389
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Valleri Mason

Text: Lastly, Appellant objects to various statements made by Valleri Mason, a forensic interviewer for Family and Children First. [4] Mason, a self-described child interview specialist, interviewed D.Y. and D.J. the day after the reported assault and testified about that interview at trial. She testified that D.Y. and D.J. made disclosures of sexual abuse and that they circled anatomically correct drawings indicating where they had been violated. In addition, she testified to the following discussion she had with D.J.: You told me that Fred, that he put his peanuts [D.J.'s term for penis] in you. She said, Yeah. I said, well can you show me on here. Does this boy, does he have peanuts? She said, yes. . . . I asked her to circle where the peanuts are on that boy and she circled the penis. Though Mason's title is that of a forensic interviewer, she is, in effect, a social worker. It is well-settled that `[t]here is no recognized exception to the hearsay rule for social workers or the results of their investigations.' B.B., 226 S.W.3d at 51. It follows that there is no hearsay exception which would allow Mason to testify to the children's identification of Appellant as having sexually assaulted them. [5] As with the medical testimony, the above hearsay was prejudicial because the testimony served to bolster the children's testimony and the Commonwealth's theory of the case. As further discussed below, in combination with the medical hearsay statements admitted into evidence at trial, reversible error occurred.