Opinion ID: 6319343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Trial and Aftermath

Text: Ochoa’s four-day trial commenced on May 8, 2019. During the State’s case-in-chief, Dr. Groben, a now-retired forensic pathologist with the Ada County Coroner’s Office, 1 testified that he had determined the cause of the victim’s death by examining the exterior of the victim’s body. Dr. Groben relied on the medical records, made by the physicians who had treated the victim and performed the emergency surgery, for information about the victim’s interior wounds. Ochoa objected to Dr. Groben’s testimony from the medical records on the basis that it was hearsay and 1 When Dr. Groben testified at the motion hearing on April 23, 2019, he was still working for the Ada County Coroner’s office; however, he had retired by the time he testified at trial. 5 that it violated Ochoa’s constitutional right to confrontation. The State asserted that Dr. Groben could testify to the facts and data contained in the medical records of the treating physicians that formed the basis of his opinion regarding the victim’s cause of death, which he attributed solely to blunt force trauma due to the motorcycle accident. On cross-examination, Dr. Groben noted the essential role the medical records had for him to determine the cause of death in this case—a case in which a person is treated by medical personal just prior to death. Because the original state of the injuries had been altered by treatment, only the medical records—not a full body autopsy— would allow him to understand the injuries the physicians saw, i.e., the injuries as they were after the accident and prior to treatment. He needed the medical records to understand the injuries the physicians saw in the hospital. Dr. Groben explained the protocols for determining cause of death in a situation such as this one: Q [PROSECUTOR]: Is it normal for people in your field to look at medical records instead of opening up a body yourself? A [DR. GROBEN]: Well, they look at medical records – they better look at medical records whenever there are medical records. ... Q: So Dr. Groben, you’re saying that, even if you did an autopsy, you wouldn’t be able to tell what the injuries were initially because they’ve been altered? A: Well, I would have – I would have seen what they did and been able to get an idea. But it was obvious that he had injuries to his pelvic region. So I would have been able to see what they had done. But to know exactly what was there before they started, of course I would have to review the medical records. It would be malpractice if I didn’t. ... Q: . . . How often do you rely on medical records when doing body inspections? A: Well, if there’s a medical record, I’ll review it on every case I do. And I include it in my findings on every case I ever do where we went through the medical records. I’ve been doing it for 20 years. And in case like this where they’ve done surgery. It’s absurd for me to go in and look because they’ve already repaired everything. So I wouldn’t even be able to tell for sure the injuries for sure because they repaired it. So for me to know exactly what was there that caused their injury, it’s mandatory. Even if I’d done an autopsy, I would’ve reviewed the medical records and included that in my report because they’re the ones who found it and then changed it. So it was all changed by the time I got there. Medical records are absolutely important to determine -- for me to determine what caused this person’s death. The magistrate court overruled Ochoa’s objection and allowed Dr. Groben’s testimony, including allowing him to testify regarding the medical facts and data contained in the medical reports. The magistrate court reasoned that the testimony fell under the hearsay exception contained in Idaho 6 Rule of Evidence 703, and that the facts and data as to the injuries sustained by the victim would help the jury understand the cause of death. Dr. Groben then testified to the extensive injuries the victim suffered from the accident, including a collapsed lung, rib fractures, multiple fractures in his pelvis, and tearing of the arteries in his pelvis. The tearing of the pelvic arteries led to refractory hypotension. Refractory hypotension occurs when a person has lost around sixty percent of their blood supply. Dr. Groben explained: “So no matter how much blood you give them, no matter how many pressors, which are chemicals that you give them to increase their blood pressure, it won’t – it doesn’t do any good. And that’s what happened in this case.” Based on the injuries noted by the operating physicians, Dr. Groben concluded the victim had died from blunt force trauma and the massive blood loss caused by the accident. Nathan Madenford, a State Trooper with the Idaho State Police and a crash reconstructionist, was called to investigate this incident and testified in the State’s case. Trooper Madenford’s investigation concluded that the collision was caused by Ochoa entering the intersection and causing an immediate hazard in front of the victim’s line of travel. During his investigation, Trooper Madenford determined that the victim likely only applied the rear motorcycle brake, instead of both the front and rear brakes, and the victim applied the brake for about 68 feet before the victim laid the motorcycle down on its left side and slid into Ochoa’s vehicle. At the point of collision, Ochoa’s vehicle was in the southbound lane; however, when the victim’s motorcycle was on its side, it slid across the northbound lane into the southbound lane. Trooper Madenford also determined that the victim’s speed was about 50–55 miles per hour before he applied his brakes. The speed limit for the northbound lane of that road was 45 miles per hour. However, by Trooper Madenford’s calculations, the victim would not have been able to stop even if he was adhering to the speed limit. Ochoa called David Cavanaugh to testify in her case-in-chief. His ultimate opinion was that had the motorcycle been going the speed limit and used both motorcycle brakes effectively, the victim would have been twenty-six feet away from Ochoa when she exited his lane into the southbound lane. Cavanaugh estimated the victim’s speed to be almost 58 miles per hour at the time of the accident. He concluded that the victim’s speed and inefficient reaction caused the collision. 7 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of vehicular manslaughter. The magistrate court sentenced Ochoa to 365 days in jail with 325 days suspended—leaving her to serve 40 days in jail—and unsupervised probation for 24 months. In lieu of 30 days jail, she was given 200 hours of community service. In lieu of the remaining 10 days in jail she was ordered to complete the “Alive at 25” driver awareness course. 2 Additionally, her driving privileges were suspended for 180 days. Ochoa appealed her conviction to the district court.