Opinion ID: 747536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Admission of V.Y.'s Statements to Dr. Garcia

Text: 29 Constitute Plain Error? 30 Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that [p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court. In United States v. Olano, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (1993), the Supreme Court concluded that the plain error provision of Rule 52(b) encompasses four requirements: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain, which means that it must be clear, or obvious[;] (3) the error must affect substantial rights (i.e. [i]t must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings[;] and (4) the error must  'seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'  Id. at 1777-79 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936)). However, the plain error exception  'is to be used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.'  United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 n. 14 (1982)); see also United States v. Denogean, 79 F.3d 1010, 1012 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 154 (1996). 31 Applying that standard, we conclude that the admission of V.Y.'s statements through Dr. Garcia's testimony did not constitute plain error. In particular, in light of the fact that V.Y. herself testified and was subject to cross-examination by his attorney, Nathan J. has failed to establish that the subsequent admission of V.Y.'s out-of-court statements seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his trial. The problem that the hearsay rules seek to address--the lack of reliability of out-of-court statements--is alleviated here by the opportunity to cross-examine V.Y., the out-of-court declarant. See United States v. Brown, 411 F.2d 1134, 1138 (10th Cir.1969) (noting that pure hearsay is inadmissible because such testimony carries no inherent likelihood of truthfulness and denies to the damaged party the right of cross-examination....). 32 This conclusion is supported by our decision in United States v. Abreu, 962 F.2d 1425, 1430 (10th Cir.1992), vacated on other grounds, 508 U.S. 935 (1993). In that case, we focused on the defendant's opportunity to cross-examine the out-of-court declarant in concluding that the admission of the alleged hearsay did not constitute plain error. See id. at 1430 (Since the co-conspirator whose declarations are in question was a government witness at trial, subject to full cross-examination by appellant on all relevant issues ... we cannot say that the admission of such hearsay testimony seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of appellant's judicial proceedings.). The reasoning of Abreu is applicable here.