Opinion ID: 1575632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Dr Monteleone's Testimony Relating to Child Victim's Out-of-Court Statements

Text: Defendant raises another confrontation problem with respect to the testimony of Dr. Monteleone concerning certain statements by T.N. at the time she was brought to Cardinal Glennon Hospital for evaluation and treatment by the child sexual abuse team. Section 491.075, RSMo, provides that if the trial court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the time, content and circumstances of statements made by the child provide sufficient indicia of reliability, and if the child either testifies at the proceedings or is unavailable as a witness, such statements are admissible. In effect, § 491.075 creates a new statutory hearsay exception for the out-of-court statements of a child victim in a sexual abuse case. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), sets forth a series of indicia of reliability rules applicable to out-of-court statements admitted when the witness is unavailable. If the statement is admissible under a deeply-rooted (traditional) exception to the hearsay rule, it will be deemed to have adequate indicia of reliability and will not violate confrontation. On the other hand, if a statement that does not fit within a deeply-rooted hearsay exception is admitted, then the admission of such statement will violate confrontation unless there is an adequate showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Statements of a child victim, admissible only under § 491.075, are not admissible under a deeply-rooted exception to the hearsay rule; such statements would be blatant hearsay in the absence of the statute allowing their admission. Thus, the admission of such statements will violate the indicia of reliability rule unless there is an adequate showing of particularized guarantee of trustworthiness. [4] Dr. Monteleone, a pediatrician on the child sexual abuse team at St. Louis University Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, testified to certain statements reportedly made by T.N. at the time of her evaluation and treatment. Six other witnesses [5] also testified to statements made by T.N. following the alleged sexual abuse. The trial court held an indicia of reliability hearing on the § 491.075 statements of each of these six witnesses and, in each instance, found the statements had indicia of reliability as required by § 491.075 and the indicia of reliability requirement of Roberts . [6] The trial court did not hold an indicia of reliability hearing with respect to Dr. Monteleone's testimony concerning statements of T.N. At the beginning of Dr. Monteleone's direct examination, a bench conference was requested by defense counsel to raise this issue; the court explained his apparent refusal to require such a hearing by stating medical history.... He is taking down a medical history. This is an exception to the general rule. Sometimes a medical doctor will take the history and qualify the records. Defense counsel then stated, Okay. I state my objection for the record. Giving both defense counsel and the trial court the benefit of the doubt as to these somewhat incomplete statements regarding the objection and the ruling, we will treat the defendant's objection as an objection that an indicia of reliability hearing was required as provided in § 491.075 and by the indicia of reliability requirement of Roberts for a non-traditional hearsay exception. The trial court apparently ruled that any statements that T.N. made to Dr. Monteleone in connection with Dr. Monteleone's evaluation and treatment of T.N. would be admissible under Missouri's exception to the hearsay rule for statements made to a treating physician. Breeding v. Dodson Trailer Repair, 679 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. banc 1984); Mo.Evidence Restated, § 803(4) (1984). This ruling was correct; if T.N. had made statements in Dr. Monteleone's presence at the time he evaluated and treated her, these statements would be admissible under this exception to the hearsay rule, which is a deeply-rooted, traditional hearsay exception that, under the first indicia of reliability rule in Roberts , provides adequate indicia of reliability so that there is no violation of confrontation. See White v. Illinois, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 736, 116 L.Ed.2d 848, involving this same type of evidence and ruling. Following the bench conference, Dr. Monteleone testified on direct examination, [s]he [T.N.] gave a positive history and that history is she described oral sex, fondling and hymenal pain, which is ripping or a tear. She drew a drawing consistent with sex abuse. Dr. Monteleone then proceeded to describe physical findings from his physical examination of T.N. and behavioral indicators he observed in T.N. that were the basis of his conclusion that, I thought we had reason to suspect sexual abuse. On cross-examination it was developed that T.N. did not make these statements in the presence of Dr. Monteleone; he did not take the history but relied upon information given to him by therapist Patty Scherzinger, who made a videotape of that interview, which is referred to in this opinion as the videotaped interview at the Special Assessment Management (SAM) Clinic. Dr. Monteleone could not testify unequivocally whether he only received the information from Ms. Scherzinger or whether he also reviewed the videotape. Ms. Scherzinger was one of the six prior witnesses who had already testified to statements made by T.N. without objection by the defendant and as to which the trial court had held an indicia of reliability hearing. Except for the bench conference at the beginning of Dr. Monteleone's testimony where defendant objected to the absence of an indicia of reliability hearing as to Dr. Monteleone, defendant made no objection at any time to any of the testimony of Dr. Monteleone concerning the statements made by T.N. Even if Dr. Monteleone had testified to statements made in his presence by T.N., an indicia of reliability hearing would not have been required under § 491.075 nor under the principles of confrontation because such statements would have been admissible under Missouri's exception to the hearsay rule for statements made to a treating physician. To the extent that Dr. Monteleone testified to what Ms. Schechtman told him, which probably constituted some form of double hearsay, his testimony was not prejudicial error; first, because no objection was made; and second, because such testimony was cumulative of the testimony previously given by Ms. Schechtman as to statements made by T.N. to her and, as to which, the trial court had held an indicia of reliability hearing. The defendant's contention that Dr. Monteleone's testimony about T.N.'s statements to him violated his constitutional rights is without merit and is rejected. His testimony did not require the use of § 491.075, did not require an indicia of reliability hearing and to the extent there was any other potential error involved in his testimony about T.N.'s statements, it was neither preserved nor prejudicial.