Court Opinion

ID: 9729092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:26:21.191554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.383450
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The trial court’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the six-year sentence of imprisonment should be affirmed. As stated by the majority, when a declarant is subject to cross-examination at trial, the confrontation clause places no restraints on the use of prior testimonial statements. Defendant’s objection that C.M.’s statement to Boston and Shalores lacks safeguards of reliability should not be the basis for reversing the trial court’s judgment. This was a bench trial. The trial court made it clear that defendant would have the opportunity at trial to argue “the reliability of the statements [and] the weight to be given to those statements at the time of hearing” at trial. The trial court made detailed findings concerning the testimony and arguments of counsel. The findings do not refer to Shalores’s testimony, and in reference to the statements of Boston, the court indicated that testimony was of little help. The trial court found the testimony of Nurse Liss to be persuasive. The court stated: “The testimony in this case necessarily starts with the testimony of [C.M.]. It is the opinion of the [c]ourt that in the context of her age and the amount of time that has passed since the offense occurred, the manner in which she testified and identified Mr. Miles was credible. If that was the only testimony that I had heard, that would not have been sufficient to convict Mr. Miles beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Miles did commit the offense charged in [c]ount II and the offense charged in [c]ount III. And I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt. There is credible testimony that Mr. Miles had the opportunity to be with this child on November 12th, 1999. There is credible testimony that when she — when the child was returned to her home, her demeanor was different; that that evening she began to complain of an injury to what she characterized as her [‘]bottom[’]; that she was, in fact, in a [sic] pain. That pain was exacerbated by a bath that was given to her that night. I did not find Dr. Tarr’s testimony particularly persuasive. I don’t, quite frankly, think that he recalls what happened that night. I was, however, very persuaded by Nurse Liss’s testimony in several regards. First, she clearly did remember that incident that night. As an experienced emergency room nurse, she is sensitive to the problems that are created by coaching of children. Her observation was that [C.M.] was not coached. She heard [C.M.] identify the person known to her as a Mr. Mickey as the person who hurt her bottom. At that time, the [c]ourt finds that there was no motive to warrant the conclusion that the child was coached into making that — those statements to Nurse Liss. Parenthetically, I understand that those statements were repeated later to Leah Boston. Again, if it was only the statements to Leah Boston, I would not be persuaded because of the method of examination that was conducted by Ms. Boston. However, the method — it was not Ms. Boston who elicited the comments that I find to be most persuasive. It was Nurse Liss who did that. Those conclusions are further corroborated by Dr. Victoria Nichols-Johnson’s testimony. Based upon her examination on November 18th of 1999 which at that period of time found excoriation within the hymenal ring, and she, to any satisfaction, discounted other causes for that excoriation, her observation of excoriation is consistent with Nurse Liss’s observation that she, in fact, on November, late hours of November 12th, early hours of November 13th, in the course of the second examination of [C.M.], observed a redness to the vaginal area where she saw a small open site, either a laceration or a tear. The [c]ourt is further persuaded by Mr. Miles’ statements to Trudy Hopkins, which the court concludes were statements of a recognition of a guilty conscious [sic]. The [c]ourt believes those statements were made. The [c]ourt disbelieves Mr. Miles’ statement that he — actually, all he said was that he doesn’t remember having made those statements. The [c]ourt does believe that those statements were made, and the [c]ourt does believe that those were evidence of a guilty conscious [sic].” The testimony of Boston and Shalores did little to help the trial court in its job as fact finder. At the most, any asserted error as set forth by the majority was harmless. This is especially true when put in context with the court’s findings. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.