Court Opinion

ID: 9779834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:50:41.808596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:42.173041
License: Public Domain

Smith, J. (concurring).
I agree with the result reached by the majority, but I think its analysis needs to be expanded.
The majority says that hospital records containing statements made by crime victims are admissible in criminal prosecutions under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. A number of Appellate Division cases say the same thing (see People v Edwards, 261 AD2d 899 [4th Dept 1999]; People v Bailey, 252 AD2d 815 [3d Dept 1998]; People v Goode, 179 AD2d 676 [2d Dept 1992]; People v Torres, 175 AD2d 635 [4th Dept 1991]; People v Archie, 167 AD2d 925 [4th Dept 1990]; People v Singleton, 140 AD2d 388 [2d Dept 1988]). Some of these cases, like the majority opinion, rely on Williams v Alexander (309 NY 283 [1955]). But the majority opinion, and these Appellate Division cases, ignore a gap in their logic: the business records exception makes the records themselves, but not hearsay contained within the records, admissible (Johnson v Lutz, 253 NY 124, 128 [1930]; Flynn v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 61 NY2d 769, 771 [1984]).
The hospital records before us present a “hearsay within hearsay” problem. They contain not only the written statements of the hospital employees who created the records—state-*621merits to which the business records exception might well apply—but also the hearsay statements of the alleged victims. As a recent lower court decision put it: “Hearsay cannot be transformed into nonhearsay simply because a business routinely relies upon it and integrates it into its own records” (Second Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 291, 297 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008]). Williams, a civil case, presented no such problem. There, the statement contained in the hospital records was made by the plaintiff, was offered in evidence by the defendant, and would thus have been admissible as an admission by an adverse party (People v Johnson, 93 NY2d 254, 260 [1999]).
I agree that the statements in issue here are admissible, but the business records exception is not enough to support that conclusion. It is clear to me that we are implicitly recognizing, and that the Appellate Division cases cited above implicitly recognize, another hearsay exception, for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. That exception is explicitly recognized in the Federal Rules of Evidence (rule 803 [4]), and finds some support in New York case law (see People v Thomas, 282 AD2d 827, 828 [3d Dept 2001]; Scott v Mason, 155 AD2d 655, 657 [2d Dept 1989]). The leading treatises on New York evidence, however, suggest that the exception has not been adopted in New York, though they also suggest that it should be adopted (Fisch, New York Evidence §§ 995-996 [2d ed & 2008 Supp]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-610 [Farrell 11th ed]), and one of them describes recent cases that point in that direction (Fisch § 996, at 571, 2008 Supp at 680-681).
A hearsay exception for statements of this kind is justifiable. Statements to one’s own doctor or other health care professional have an intrinsic guarantee of reliability, for only a foolish person would lie to his or her own doctor when seeking medical help (see Davidson v Cornell, 132 NY 228, 237 [1892]). And the exception, it seems to me, is essential to the majority’s decision, consistent with uniform Appellate Division authority, that the evidence at issue in these cases is admissible. In other words, I think we are adopting the “medical diagnosis and treatment” exception to the hearsay rule in this case, and I think we ought to say so.
Applying the exception to these cases, I agree with the majority that all the statements in issue (apart from the harmless reference to the color of the belt used by Benston to attack his victim) were properly admitted. I have no difficulty with *622Ortega: surely a doctor treating someone for narcotics poisoning would want to know the circumstances under which the patient came to ingest the drug. I find Benston a harder case, because it is much less obvious that a doctor treating a patient for attempted strangulation would care whether the patient’s assailant was an ex-boyfriend or a stranger. I accept, however, the majority’s conclusion that, when a victim of alleged domestic violence seeks treatment, it is the duty of those treating her to address not just her physical ailments, but any psychological and safety issues that her case may present.
This broad understanding of what is relevant to diagnosis and treatment will, I acknowledge, make quite a lot of hearsay evidence admissible: when a patient has a mental health problem, it may often be true that almost any statement about his or her history will be within the hearsay exception. But I see no reason to limit hearsay more strictly in situations like this. Often, as in both of the present cases, a broad hearsay exception will serve only to admit prior consistent statements, which are at worst cumulative of the witness’s testimony in the courtroom. In other cases, particularly if they involve domestic violence, it may serve to admit prior inconsistent statements, not just for impeachment purposes, but as evidence-in-chief. This seems to me highly desirable: When an alleged victim testifies in court that her boyfriend or husband never laid a hand on her, a jury should be allowed to learn of and evaluate, without artificial restrictions, her previous statement to her doctor describing a brutal assault.
I see no unfairness to defendants in holding that prior statements of witnesses, whether consistent or inconsistent with their in-court testimony, are admissible if made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. In either kind of case, the witness can be cross-examined, and if the statements are inconsistent the jury, aided by the cross-examination, can decide which to believe. These cases do not present the harder problem that will arise when the out-of-court statement was made by a person who does not testify at trial. The majority says nothing about that problem, and I too think it best to leave it for another day.