Opinion ID: 2318602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Testimony of Dr. Barron on September 22, 2010

Text: 1. The Consultation Reports On September 22, 2010 (the first day of the termination-of-parental-rights trial), Dr. Barron testified for DCYF as an expert witness with respect to child abuse. Doctor Barron testified that, when she arrived at the hospital on October 4, 2009, Dr. Kristin Fortin was already consulting on Marco's case. Doctor Barron stated that it was Dr. Fortin who had initially spoken to Marco's family members in order to gather a history with respect to Marco's injury. Doctor Barron told the court that she verified the information obtained by Dr. Fortin with Marco's maternal grandmother and with Ms. Oliver. The information which Dr. Barron and Dr. Fortin obtained from these two family members was included in the Child Protection Program Inpatient Consultation Reports that were completed with respect to both Marco and Jazlyn at the time of their respective admissions to the hospital. [8] 2. Testimony as to Marco's Injuries Doctor Barron relied on the just-referenced reports to refresh her recollection while testifying at trial as to the details of what occurred on the day that Marco was brought to the hospital. Doctor Barron testified, without objection, that Marco's family members eventually revealed to her that Marco had sustained a punch or blow to the abdomen approximately sixteen hours prior to his admission to the hospital, [c]ausing an injury that resulted in his death. Doctor Barron further testified that Marco had died as a result of child physical abuse and lack of medical care due to neglect. Doctor Barron also testified that it was her opinion that [i]f Marco had been brought [to the hospital] with a reported history that he had abdominal trauma, he could have gone to the operating room where the injury to his intra-abdominal organs could have been fixed. She further testified that it was her opinion that surgery was not a viable option at the time that he was eventually brought to the hospital. 3. Testimony as to Jazlyn's Injuries During the course of Dr. Barron's testimony concerning the injuries sustained by Jazlyn, DCYF sought to have the above-referenced consultation reports admitted as exhibits 1 and 2. The trial justice admitted the consultation reports into evidence as full exhibits over respondent's objection; the articulated basis for that objection was that Dr. Barron was here to testify. Doctor Barron then proceeded to testify that rib fractures such as were sustained by fourteen-month-old Jazlyn were rare in a child of that age, and she stated that such fractures would be consistent with child physical abuse. Doctor Barron also testified that posterior rib fractures are caused by a squeezing mechanism; she added that, in her opinion, the posterior rib fractures sustained by Jazlyn were consistent with what she referred to as inflicted injury. 4. Further Testimony as to Marco's Injuries Later in her testimony, returning to the subject of the cause of Marco's injuries, Dr. Barron stated explicitly that both Ms. Oliver and Marco's maternal grandmother had reported to her that Marco had been injured by Mr. Michael Patino. At that point in the trial, respondent's counsel objected on the basis that the information comes from hearsay. In response, the trial justice noted for the record that the information about which Dr. Barron was testifying was contained in the consultation reports that had already been admitted as full exhibits. The respondent's counsel replied that he had objected to the admission of those exhibits, and he pointed out that his objection had been overruled by the court. There then took place a discussion between the trial justice and the parties in an attempt to determine exactly which exhibits respondent's counsel had previously objected to and on what basis. Counsel for DCYF contended that respondent's counsel had objected to exhibits 1 and 2 on the basis that Dr. Barron was present to testify; [9] at that point, respondent's counsel renewed his objection on that same basis. The trial justice then responded that, such being the basis for the objection, the objection was again overruled. It was then that respondent's counsel stated that he was objecting to the portion of the report    that comes from hearsay. The trial justice responded by overruling the latter objection as well. C