Opinion ID: 1231201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: First Degree Assault and Child Abuse

Text: In her tape-recorded interview with Muldoon, Cindy said, My daddy stepped on James' foot and My daddy hit James... with his fist. She also said that her father hit James in the stomach with his fist and had hit the boy in the face. When asked if her father hit James' leg, Cindy responded, Yeah, he broke hisJames brokemy daddy hit James' leg and James falled on the porch. Cindy also said that my daddy kicked him [James] with his feet when'cause James won't walk to my daddy. She also said that because James would not walk, he was beaten hard on his foot. As previously stated, Plant objected to this evidence on hearsay and lack of confrontation grounds. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Cindy's statements regarding James' injuries satisfied the requirements of either residual hearsay exception, we need not decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the statements also qualified as excited utterances. As previously discussed, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Cindy Plant was unavailable to testify. Therefore, either residual hearsay exception is applicable here. The only argument raised by Plant in this regard is whether Cindy Plant's statements about the assault and abuse perpetrated on James satisfy the trustworthiness element of the residual hearsay exceptions. Again, as our prior discussion illustrates, the requirement of trustworthiness, as well as the remaining elements of the residual hearsay exceptions, has been satisfied here. As we stated in our prior discussion in regard to the murder charge against Plant, the trial court's finding under the residual hearsay exceptions that Cindy Plant was unavailable as a witness and that her statements were trustworthy disposed of the confrontation clause argument. The same is true with respect to her statements regarding Plant's abuse of James Bartlett. Moreover, as will be set out later, in most respects, Cindy's out-of-court statements in regard to how James received his injuries, including those to Dr. Woerth, were generally cumulative to evidence given by other witnesses. Thus, the admission into evidence to Cindy's out-of-court statements regarding James' injuries did not result in any prejudice to Plant. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these statements of Cindy Plant's under either residual hearsay exception, nor did it abuse its discretion in determining that their admission did not violate Plant's right to confrontation.