Opinion ID: 2156396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Purow's Testimony

Text: Dr. Benjamin Purow, who had examined I.J.'s brother, A.J., at the hospital, testified in part by reading the following statement of A.J. in a medical record, which also was admitted in evidence: He says his mother's boyfriends [sic] struck him in the face and back ... with a closed fist because [A.J.] told his mother the boyfriend was sexually abusing [A.J.]'s sister.  Trial counsel did not object, and the court issued no limiting instruction. Jenkins argues that the italicized testimony was highly prejudicial and thus that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective in allowing its admission in evidence under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule because it was irrelevant to A.J.'s diagnosis or treatment. The government replies, quoting Galindo v. United States, 630 A.2d 202 (D.C.1993), that when a child (here, A.J.) is sexually assaulted by someone who is effectively a member of the child's immediate household (here, Jenkins), that child's statement explaining the cause of the injury, even when identifying who is to blame, is admissible for its truth under the medical diagnosis exception when reasonably pertinent to treatment, including treatment of psychological and emotional consequences. Id. at 210. [3] Because Jenkins' beatings of A.J. were directly related to A.J.'s observations of Jenkins' sexual abuse of A.J.'s sister, I.J., the injuries to A.J. requiring treatment by Dr. Purow were psychological as well as physical. Thus, according to the government, A.J.'s observations about I.J.'s assault were relevant to A.J.'s treatment and, contrary to Jenkins' contention, came within the medical diagnosis exception. Furthermore, says the government, any prejudice from admitting Dr. Purow's medical record was mitigated by the fact that not only Dr. Purow but also A.J., the children's mother, and Ms. Thompson testified, all of whom were subject to cross-examination. In particular, A.J. testified that Jenkins had accused him of lying and had beaten him repeatedly after A.J. told his mother about what Jenkins had done to I.J. A.J.'s mother testified, moreover, that Jenkins had said he was going to fuck [A.J.] up, that she had heard A.J. yell and had asked Jenkins to stop hitting him, and that she had found A.J. curled up on his bed crying. Finally, Ms. Thompson testified that she had seen A.J. with a messed up and lop-sided face, an apparently broken nose covered with red and purple marks, and a fat lip, and that Jenkins had admitted to her whopping A.J. According to the government, therefore, A.J.'s statement to Dr. Purow was cumulative of the trial testimony, which mitigated any prejudice arising from the medical record. Galindo, 630 A.2d at 211. We agree with the government not only that the hearsay report of A.J.'s statement at issue was relevant to A.J.'s diagnosis and treatment, but also that Dr. Purow's medical record containing that statement was accompanied by the kind of testimony and cross-examination that tested the statement's reliability. There was a confluence of evidence that precluded error in the absence of discernible prejudice. From this perspective, the error-harmless error issues merge. In sum, we perceive no reversible error in the admission of the challenged statement in Dr. Purow's medical record, let alone any deficiency in trial counsel's decision not to object to its admission.