Opinion ID: 871157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Dr Lee's Testimony

Text: Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Lee, testified that on February 7, 2009, he examined CW # 2 at the Kapiolani Medical Center's Sex Abuse Treatment Center for three hours. Dr. Lee testified that [t]he purpose of [his] examination was to examine the patient for any injuries that might need medical attention and also to gather forensic evidence. He explained that there are two parts to the exam: the first part is the historical exam to find out the nature of your complaint and why you're at the doctor's office and the second part of the exam is the physical exam. During the historical exam, CW # 2 complained of pain in her upper lip, a bleeding nose, pain on the left side of her face and the back of her head, blood when she wiped after using the restroom, pain on her left arm, and marks on her right hip. When Dr. Lee asked her how the pain and bleeding started, she told him that her assailant punched her nose, causing it to bleed; punched her cheek and the back of her head, causing her to have a headache and ringing in her ears; grabbed her arm, causing pain; pulled her out of her car, causing pain on her right hip; punched her lips and left side of her face; pulled her hair; and bit her lip and left breast. CW # 2 also told Dr. Lee that her assailant put his penis in her vagina[,] and that she was scared because he grabbed her throat, made her massage his penis[,] perform oral sex on him, rubbed her genital area, fondled her breast and entire body, kissed her breasts, spat in her mouth, and ejaculated in her mouth and forced her to swallow. CW # 2 told Dr. Lee that she did it because she was scared and [d]idn't want to get hit again. In addition, Dr. Lee testified that he asked CW # 2 if there were any threats involved  and she said yes. (Emphasis added.) According to Dr. Lee, CW # 2 told him that Respondent said  [she] wouldn't be going home if [she] didn't do what he told [her] to do.  (Emphasis added.) Dr. Lee further testified that CW # 2 told him, `He said he would shoot me. He said I'd be lucky to go home today because most girls don't go home [.]' (Emphasis added.) During the physical examination, Dr. Lee found that CW # 2 had tenderness to her breast; recent abrasions or scratches on her ride side of her neck and her right thigh; lesions on her neck; tenderness and pain in her left shoulder and arm; a two-centimeter area on the back of her neck that was raised and tender, consistent with a hematoma or lump or a `goose egg[]' on her scalp, with bleeding under the skin; a recent contusion; a red and swollen lip; tenderness on the bridge of her nose; and multiple, recent contusions, bruises and abrasions on her body. According to Dr. Lee, CW # 2 had pain, but no marks, on her right shoulder, at the bridge of her nose, and in the cheek bone area. In his pelvic examination, Dr. Lee observed some redness on her external genitalia, indicating that recently there was some irritation there. Dr. Lee also discovered a loose black hair, which did not match CW # 2's hair color. Id. Dr. Lee noted that at the time of [his examination,] there was some scant pinkish vaginal discharge and later in the examination he saw it coming from the... opening of the cervix. Dr. Lee assumed that this was the beginning of a menstrual period for her because blood coming from the cervix isyou know, ... a menstrual period. When asked whether his bimanual examination was consistent with penetration of the genital opening[,] Dr. Lee responded, Yes, it was. Although he indicated that the bimanual examination, during which he places fingers inside of her vagina[,] was unremarkable, normal, Dr. Lee was asked on redirect examination, [T]he fact that you don't see injuries to the genital area, does that rule out a sexual assault? He responded, No, It does not. [8] At the close of Dr. Lee's testimony, defense counsel moved to strike Dr. Lee's testimony regarding statements that CW # 2 was assaulted and threatened by Respondent, arguing that such testimony has nothing to do with a physical examination. The following exchange took place: THE COURT: Under 803(b)(4)[ [9] ] statements for purposes of medical diagnosis, the doctor has to do a thorough diagnosis; and based on the diagnosis, it's going to lead to the appropriate treatment. So finding out, for instance, whether an assault takes place or takes place with a stranger or intimate family member is going to have to do with the doctor's treatment recommendations on staying away from people, being close to people. Her talking about it in her history of talking about it is an integral part of that. And the treatment he may order may include psychological counseling, may include post-traumatic stress disorder, if appropriate; and the only way that can come about is to get the history from her. So the objection is noted, but it is overruled under 803(b)(4). And because [CW # 2] is present, she's going to be available for cross-examination so there's no confrontation clause issue at this time. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I'd just like to point out, [Y]our [H]onor, that the purpose of this examination was not for purposes of diagnosis and treatment. The purpose of this examination was forit's a sex assault examination. So I don't believe the doctor even testified as to what treatment, if anything, he was going to recommend. By allowing this doctor to testify as to what [CW # 2] may have said will bolsterunnecessarily bolster the testimony of [CW # 2] in this case. THE COURT: Okay. I think it's for both. The doctor's examination is to look for evidence of sex assault trauma, if that's what really happened; but her statements to him are for both diagnosis and treatment and referral. So I think it's for all of those purposes. So your objection is noted and overruled. (Emphasis added.)