Opinion ID: 2081521
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Admission of Dr. Washington's Testimony

Text: The father argues that the testimony by the experts [was] not merely offered to identify any mental diagnosis, but [was] directly offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. As a preliminary matter, the father failed to object to the admission of the doctor's testimony about I.P.'s emotional state or her presence during the alleged incidents of abuse. The father must therefore demonstrate plain error in order to win reversal on this ground. See, e.g., In re S.S., 821 A.2d 353, 358 (D.C.2003) (citing cases); In re S.C.M., 653 A.2d 398, 404 (D.C.1995). Furthermore, when hearsay is admitted in evidence without objection, a court may consider it and accord it full probative value. Rose v. United States, 629 A.2d 526, 531 (D.C.1993) (footnote omitted). We hold that, although Dr. Washington's testimony about I.P. was hearsay and did not come within any exception to the hearsay rule, its admission was not plain error. Hearsay is a statement, made out of court, which is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule; the one most pertinent here is the exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis. See, e.g., In re Ca.S., 828 A.2d 184, 190 (D.C.2003). We held recently in another neglect case that statements attributed to the victim seeking medical treatment relating to the psychological and emotional consequences of the abuse ... may ... be admitted under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule. In re Kya. B., 857 A.2d 465, 472 (D.C.2004) (quoting Jones v. United States, 813 A.2d 220, 227 (D.C.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The statements, however, must be occasioned by a medical examination not merely `made to elicit evidence for use in the trial.' Sullivan v. United States, 404 A.2d 153, 158 (D.C.1979) (citation omitted). In the case before us, I.P.'s statements to Dr. Washington were made during the course of a court-ordered examination rather than a traditional therapy session. Under the rule as stated in Sullivan, therefore, the medical diagnosis exception does not apply. In re Ca.S., 828 A.2d at 191. [17] Nevertheless, we see no reason to reverse the trial court on this point, since N.P. herself testified that she and her sister were both present during incidents of abuse. We are satisfied that no plain error occurred when the court admitted Dr. Washington's testimony with regard to I.P., since it merely duplicated N.P.'s firsthand account of the abuse that both she and her sister had witnessed.