Court Opinion

ID: 9406293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 16:08:04.642603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:28.803427
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court

                                           No. 2021-216-C.A.
                                           (P1/17-1457A)

                                           (Concurrence begins on
                                           Page 33)

   State                    :

     v.                     :

James White.                :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email      opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov,      of     any
typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
                                                          Supreme Court

                                                          No. 2021-216-C.A.
                                                          (P1/17-1457A)

                                                          (Concurrence begins on
                                                          Page 33)

                  State                :

                   v.                  :

            James White.               :

      Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

                                  OPINION

      Justice Robinson, for the Court. The defendant, James White, appeals

from a December 11, 2020 judgment of conviction and commitment on one count

of first-degree sexual assault entered following a jury trial.     On appeal, the

defendant contends that the trial justice committed prejudicial error by permitting

the state to introduce into evidence a nurse’s testimony concerning what the

complaining witness told her about the alleged sexual assault.

      For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court.

                                       -1-
                                           I

                                  Facts and Travel

      On June 5, 2017, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of

first-degree sexual assault in violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 11-37-2 and 11-37-3,

stemming from an alleged sexual assault against Iliana Gomez on December 4,

2016.1   A jury trial commenced on November 6, 2019, and it continued on

November 7 and 8, with a guilty verdict being returned on November 12 of that

year. We relate below the salient aspects of that trial.

                                          A

                 The Testimony of Patrolman Michael Maycock

      Patrolman Michael Maycock testified that, at approximately 2:00 a.m. on

December 4, 2016, he responded to a call from a neighbor of defendant who had

reported a disturbance. Officer Maycock testified that, when he arrived at the

apartment where defendant lived, he “heard some screaming and yelling.” He

explained that what mainly “stood out” to him was that he “heard a female voice

for somebody yelling to get off of her.” He testified that the exact words that the

female voice was yelling were: “Get the f*** off of me.”

1
      We shall hereinafter usually refer to the complaining witness, Iliana Gomez,
and her sister, Cynthia Gomez, by their first names. We do so for the sake of
simplicity, and we intend no disrespect.

                                         -2-
      Officer Maycock testified that he and another officer began to knock

aggressively on the door so as to “announce [their] presence as police.” He further

testified that he heard the lock unlock and that he was able to push his way through

the door at that point, even though there had been “a force holding the door.”

Officer Maycock testified that, when he entered the apartment, defendant “was

naked from the waist down” and that his “genitalia was erect.” He said that

defendant stated that “he didn’t do anything wrong” and that he “was just trying to

have sex with [Iliana].”

      Officer Maycock further testified that, when he first came through the door,

Iliana “was curled up in a ball * * * on the floor;” he added that “she was also

naked from the waist down.” He testified that Iliana “was very upset, tearful,

shaking” and that “[t]he only thing she said to [him] is that she just wanted to go

home.” Officer Maycock added that, during “[t]he whole time that [he] dealt with

her, she was visibly upset and crying the majority of the time.”

                                         B

                    The Testimony of Sergeant John Martin

      Sergeant John Martin of the Providence Police Department testified that, at

approximately 2:00 a.m. on December 4, 2016, he responded to a dispatch call

involving a neighbor “reporting some type of disturbance in an apartment with a

                                        -3-
female yelling.”2 He testified that, as he was walking in, another police officer was

walking out with Iliana and that, as Iliana “was walking past [him,] she was crying,

visibly shaken and upset, and made a statement that she just wanted to go home.”

Sergeant Martin added that he went into the stairwell to meet with Officer

Maycock and defendant and that defendant told him that he had been “horny and

[that] he tried to have sex with her but that they didn’t have sex.”

                                           C

                              The Testimony of Iliana

      The complaining witness, Iliana Gomez, testified that, on Saturday,

December 3, 2016, she and her sisters (Cynthia Gomez and Angelica Castro) as

well as Cynthia’s fiancé, defendant James White, went to Passions, a club in

Providence. She further testified that, in the early morning hours of Sunday,

December 4, a friend of Cynthia’s agreed to pick up the three sisters at Passions.

Iliana added that the friend “started giving attitude and running her mouth because

she didn’t want to have to drive around dropping people off.” She stated that the

friend then brought her back to Passions, but Passions would not allow her to

re-enter because it was about to close. Iliana testified that, after the friend declined

to provide her with a further ride, Cynthia told her to “wait for [defendant] to leave

the club and catch a ride with him * * *.”

2
      At the time of the incident at issue, Sgt. Martin held the rank of patrolman.

                                         -4-
      It was Iliana’s further testimony that, shortly thereafter, she saw defendant

outside of Passions and he agreed to give her a ride back to the apartment in

Providence which he and Cynthia shared. Iliana added that, when she arrived at

the apartment, she was feeling dizzy and that she therefore lay down on an air

mattress in the living room. She stated that defendant then told her “to just lie

down on [Cynthia’s] bed with him because she wouldn’t be home until the

morning.” Iliana testified that she declined defendant’s suggestion and told him

that she “was going to stay on the air mattress.”

      Iliana further testified that defendant then “got on top of [her], started

kissing [her] and biting [her] neck.” Iliana stated that she was on her back while

defendant’s whole body was on top of her. She further testified that she told him

“to stop it [and] to get off of [her];” she added that, when he did not comply, she

began screaming for help.      She said that she “kept pushing him” and “kept

screaming” while he was “covering [her] mouth and choking [her].” Iliana added

that defendant pulled her jeans and underwear “down to [her] thighs” and that

“[h]e kept trying to put his face down there.” She testified that, although she “kept

pushing him,” he nevertheless, “put his fingers inside of [her].” Iliana stated that

she “kept fighting him” and kept screaming: “Help. Get off me.”

      Iliana added that, when defendant removed his fingers, she started throwing

up. She testified that defendant again put his fingers inside of her and then “pulled

                                        -5-
[her] pants all the way off.” Iliana also stated that she “kept kicking and pushing

him, hitting him” and that she “was yelling throughout this whole * * * situation.”

She further testified that, every time she tried to separate herself from defendant,

he would pull her by her hair and would push her back down.

      Iliana next testified that she told defendant that she would “do what he wants

[her] to do” but that first she “just need[ed] to use the bathroom real quick.” She

stated that it was her intention “to run to the door.” Iliana said that defendant did

let her use the bathroom, but that he stood “[i]n the bathroom door.” Iliana

testified that she ran for the door on her way out of the bathroom, while defendant

kept pulling her hair as she continued screaming for help. She further testified that

defendant kept covering her mouth and continued to bite her.

      Iliana testified that, after a couple of minutes, she was able to unlock the

apartment door that led to the outside common hallway. She added that defendant

pinned her down and that she was slouched in the corner, with her knees up to her

chest, while defendant proceeded to pull her head back in an attempt to force his

penis into her mouth. It was also her testimony that she tried to push him off and

that she kept shoving him when she heard a loud knock at the door. Iliana stated

that, as the police walked in, defendant was screaming: “Just tell them we just got

into an argument.” Iliana testified that she told the police that “it was just an

argument” because she “was scared” and “just wanted to go home.” She stated

                                        -6-
that an officer drove her to the police station, where she called her mother to

request that she be picked up.

      Iliana testified that, after returning home, she tried to lie down, but “was in a

lot of pain.” She further testified that her “head really hurt” and that she therefore

took a shower; she added that, when she got out of the shower, she continued

throwing up. She stated that she told her mother and her aunt about what had

happened in the apartment with defendant and that they then “took [her] to the

hospital.”

      In the course of Iliana’s testimony, various communications from defendant

were introduced into evidence; those communications all occurred subsequent to

the sexual assault that allegedly occurred in the early morning hours of December

4, 2016. In the following paragraphs, we summarize those communications.

             1. The Defendant’s Direct Communications with Iliana

      Iliana testified that, in the afternoon or early evening of December 4, she

received two Facebook Messenger3 messages from defendant, screen shots of

which were admitted as full exhibits at trial.

3
      Meta Platforms, Inc., which is the owner of both Facebook and Messenger,
describes Messenger as “a simple yet powerful messaging application for people to
connect with friends, family, communities, and businesses across platforms and
devices through text, audio and video calls.” Meta Platforms, Inc., Annual Report
(Form 10-K) 7 (Feb. 2, 2023).

                                         -7-
      The first message was sent at 2:34 p.m. on December 4 to Iliana, who

testified that her nickname is “Ellie.” The message reads as follows:

             “Hey Ellie I just wanna say I am so so sorry [I don’t
             know] what I was thinking I was jus drunk & I wasn’t
             myself but please Ellie don’t say anything to anyone
             about this please I am sorry & I’ll do anything to show u
             how sorry I am I love u kid please don’t say anything I
             told Cynthia that the cops didn’t come to the House &
             that u left cuz me & u got into a argument please Ellie
             keep this between us I love you & I am sorry I jus can’t
             lose my family over a drunk night I love u & I am sorry
             after you read this delete the message.”

      The second message, which defendant sent to Iliana approximately four

hours later at 6:36 p.m., reads as follows:

             “Can you please tell your sister the truth please because
             someone told her I tried to rape u & I know it wasn’t u
             that said that cuz that never happen & u know that we
             both as jus mad f***ed up smh.”4

Iliana testified that the next day she went to the police to report the alleged sexual

assault.

      Iliana further testified that defendant sent her a third Facebook Messenger

message several days later, on December 12, 2016; that message reads as follows:

             “Cynthia jus told me that u called her & said that the
             cops is about to pick me up so I guess your ready to get
             locked up to IDC.”5

4
      Iliana testified that she understands “smh” to mean “[s]haking my head.”
5
      Iliana testified that she understands “IDC” to mean “I don’t care.”

                                         -8-
It was Iliana’s testimony at trial that she did not respond to any of these messages

from defendant.

      Iliana further testified that at some point in time there was a “three-way” call

that was meant to involve defendant and Cynthia and Iliana herself. She further

testified, however, that she ended the call as soon as she heard defendant say: “Just

hear me out.”

                                 2. The Affidavit

      Iliana testified that, at a later date,6 while they were in a car together,

Cynthia provided her with an affidavit that she said defendant had prepared for her

to sign, which she did. The affidavit, which was admitted as a full exhibit, stated:

                   “To whom it may concern,

                    “I Iliana Gomez is writing this affidavit to recant
             my statement and be honest and say I lied and that my
             whole testimony was made up. I never liked James
             White. I always hated him but he is not guilty of
             anything but being disloyal to my sister. At one point, he
             did hold me down that’s why I was screaming get off me
             but that’s only because I was trying to hit him and he was
             trying to stop me, but again he not guilty of anything but
             being disloyal to my sister.

                   “Thank you!!!”

6
      Iliana testified that she did not know the exact date on which she signed the
affidavit.

                                        -9-
Iliana testified at trial that the information contained in the affidavit was not true.

She further testified that she signed the affidavit because at that time she was

“heavily drinking” and was “pressured” and “overwhelmed.”

    3. The Defendant’s Telephone Call to Cynthia Shortly before the Trial

      On November 2, 2019, four days prior to trial, defendant called Cynthia

from prison.7 A recording of the call was admitted as a full exhibit at trial. In the

course of that call, defendant stated:

             “[M]y brother and his wife asked the lawyer well um
             what if uh what if uh home girl don’t show up, and he
             said well if home girl don’t show up then he’s walking
             the f*** outta here. It’s no questions… it’s no questions
             asked, he’s walking the f*** outta here. And the lawyer
             said but that’s not the case this girl is showing up, um
             and my brother said well how could you be so sure * * *.
             And it’s crazy cause my lawyer begged me not to say
             something, but it’s like how do I not say nothing when I
             find out that they’re still tryna come to court and take my
             life away from me. When ain’t nobody gonna get in
             trouble if no…don’t nobody show up. You know what
             I’m saying?”

      Later in the same telephone call, defendant spoke to Cynthia as follows:

7
      The jury was not made aware that defendant’s call to Cynthia was made
from prison. The trial justice instructed the jury in that regard as follows:

             “[T]his is a phone call that was recorded. What I do want
             you to know is, number one, you’re not to speculate as to
             the location of the caller or the person who received the
             call and spoke to the caller.
                    Number two, you are to know that the recording of
             this call was done legally and permissibly, so don’t
             speculate about that either.”

                                         - 10 -
             “But I do want you to know that no matter what they tell
             you, if they do tell you anything, if they don’t tell you
             anything, I want you to know because your daughter
             …our daughter, you know what I’m saying, will have her
             father back next week if they don’t show up to court. But
             if they do, * * * I’m not coming home next week * * *.”

      Still later in the telephone call, he said to Cynthia:

             “I just wish like hell you can just block everything out
             your mind for one day, just one f***ing day, one day,
             and just take into consideration that it’s a possibility that
             they would listen to you, and if they don’t then they
             don’t. You know what I’m saying, but at least honestly
             God forbid my shit went left you can say well look I tried
             to get them not to show up, that’s it.”

      After a voice on the recording device indicated that there was one minute

remaining on the call, defendant said:

             “Cynthia, * * * if it’s the last f***ing thing I ever ask for
             yo all jokes aside, at least try. Try to talk to these people
             and tell them please do not show up.”

                                           D

                    The Testimony of Nurse Katherine Plante

      On the second day of trial, November 7, 2019, Katherine Plante, a registered

nurse employed by Kent County Hospital, testified as to her interactions with

Iliana in the late afternoon of December 4, 2016.              Nurse Plante’s testimony

provided in pertinent part as follows:

             “[PROSECUTOR]: The sex assault exam, could you
             describe it for the jury? What do you do initially upon
             encountering a patient as a resource nurse?

                                         - 11 -
“[NURSE]: You will go in a room and there’s a box that
you get. It’s chain of custody. So you open it up and
there’s policy and protocols that you go through, and
there’s paper that you take out. The person needs to
change, and there’s a lot of documentation that you go
through and --

“* * *

“[PROSECUTOR]: During this exam, do you speak with
the patient?

“[NURSE]: Yes.

“[PROSECUTOR]: What is the point of speaking with
the patient?

“[NURSE]: To get what they’re saying happened[,] to
understand what they’re saying. Then to also offer
support after.

“* * *

“[PROSECUTOR]: When you first encountered [Iliana],
what did you do?

“[NURSE]: At first I introduced myself, spoke with her,
and just explained that it was going to be a lengthy
procedure what we were doing. I explained to her what
would happen, and that the information she gave me
would not leave with me until it’s locked up and secured.

“[PROSECUTOR]: So did you speak with her? Did you
have a conversation with her?

“[NURSE]: Yes.

                         - 12 -
            “[PROSECUTOR]: Describe her appearance,                 her
            demeanor, during this initial conversation.

            “[NURSE]: She was very anxious, shaking, disheveled.
            She really didn’t -- she would answer my questions, but
            didn’t elaborate a lot. It just seemed like she kind of
            wanted to get in and out.

            “[PROSECUTOR]: Did you ask her what happened?

            “[NURSE]: Yes.

            “[PROSECUTOR]: What did she tell you?

            “[NURSE]: She had said that she had gone out with her
            sisters, her sister’s boyfriend and her sister’s boyfriend’s
            friends. And at some point she went back to, I believe it
            was her sister’s apartment, yes, her sister’s apartment,
            that she was alone with James White. She had said that
            --”

      Defense counsel then objected and requested to be heard at sidebar, where

the following exchange occurred:

            “THE COURT: What is your ground?

            “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: My ground is hearsay, Your
            Honor. This is supposed to be -- the information being
            provided by the patient, it’s supposed to be for purposes
            of medical diagnosis and treatment and identifying a
            perpetrator, no connection to medical --

            “THE COURT: I’m actually on cases where potentially it
            could be someone close to you. For the protection of the
            patient, sometimes they want the identity. In other
            words, was it a stranger, an assault, all right? You might
            not need the person identified with particularity because

                                       - 13 -
            that’s not pertinent; whereas, if it is a family member or
            someone close to a family member, it may be pertinent.
                   But what do you say?

            “[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I would suggest, for
            that exact reason, this is a situation where the witness is
            examining the complainant who is already disheveled,
            anxious, nervous. Certainly --

            “THE COURT: Is this part of the appropriate hearsay
            exception for medical treatment history?

            “[PROSECUTOR]: Yes.

            “THE COURT: Yes?

            “[PROSECUTOR]: Particularly in getting the patient’s
            history, the nurse wants to discover what kind of risk that
            she has.”

At that point, the trial justice overruled defense counsel’s objection, and the

prosecutor continued with the direct examination of Nurse Plante.

            “[PROSECUTOR]: What else did [Iliana] tell you?

            “[NURSE]: She said that she didn’t feel well and that she
            was told to go lie down on the air mattress that was on
            the floor, and she said that she was pushed down on the
            mattress, that the assault was that he used his fingers
            inside of her vagina, pulled her clothes down and that at
            some point he tried to put his penis in her mouth and that
            she was screaming. At some point she was bitten and her
            hair had been pulled.

            “* * *

            “[PROSECUTOR]: In addition to her injuries, did
            [Iliana] talk about any physical reaction she had to being
            assaulted?

                                      - 14 -
             “[NURSE]: She claimed to just feel very sick, nauseous
             and had been vomiting, she said, all day.”

The trial then adjourned for the day.

                                           E

                             The Conclusion of the Trial

      Nurse Plante’s testimony continued the next day, November 8, 2019, with

her explaining the photographs that she had taken of Iliana’s body, including a bite

mark on Iliana’s neck and bruising on her forearm, knees, wrist, elbow, chest,

shoulder blades, feet, and neck.8

      After presenting the testimony of a witness from the Rhode Island

Department of Health that is of no relevance to the issues before us, the state

rested.9 The defendant chose not to testify and presented no witnesses. Counsel

then delivered their closing arguments, and the jury was instructed by the trial

justice before retiring to deliberate.

8
      The photographs about which Nurse Plante testified were admitted as full
exhibits.
9
      After the state rested, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant
to Rule 29 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. That motion was
denied by the trial justice.

                                         - 15 -
                                         F

                          The Verdict and the Sentence

      On November 12, 2019, the jury returned a guilty verdict. On November 16,

2020, the trial justice sentenced defendant to thirty-eight years at the Adult

Correctional Institutions, with twenty-three years to serve and fifteen years

suspended, with probation. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                         II

                               The Issue on Appeal

      The issue before this Court is whether the trial justice committed prejudicial

error by permitting the state to introduce into evidence Nurse Plante’s testimony

relative to what Iliana related to her about the alleged sexual assault. The focus of

our analysis will be on Rule 803(4) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, entitled

“Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.”              Rule 803(4)

describes as follows certain medically related statements that are not barred

pursuant to the general rule that makes hearsay statements inadmissible:

             “Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or
             treatment and describing medical history, or past or
             present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or
             general character of the cause or external source thereof
             insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment,
             but not including statements made to a physician
             consulted solely for the purposes of preparing for
             litigation or obtaining testimony for trial.” (Emphasis
             added.)

                                       - 16 -
                                         III

                                Standard of Review

      It is a basic principle that the “determination of whether an out-of-court

statement meets an exception to the hearsay rule is within the trial justice’s

discretion.” State v. Martin, 68 A.3d 467, 475 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Rhode Island

Managed Eye Care, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 996 A.2d

684, 692 (R.I. 2010)). When this Court applies this standard, “a trial justice’s

ruling will be upheld unless abuse of discretion that prejudices the complaining

party is shown.” State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1240, 1247 (R.I. 2010); see also State v.

Bergevine, 942 A.2d 974, 978 (R.I. 2008) (“[T]he admission of a statement under

an exception to the hearsay rule is within the sound discretion of the trial justice

and shall not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.”) (quoting State v. Ruffner,

911 A.2d 680, 689 (R.I. 2006)).10

                                         IV

                                      Analysis

      The defendant contends that the trial justice committed prejudicial error by

allowing the state to introduce into evidence Nurse Plante’s testimony concerning

what Iliana related to her about the alleged sexual assault. Specifically, defendant

10
       We have further explained that a “trial justice will not have abused his or her
discretion as long as some grounds supporting his or her decision appear in the
record.” State v. Evans, 742 A.2d 715, 719 (R.I. 1999); see also State v. Nichols,
155 A.3d 1180, 1186 (R.I. 2017); State v. Brown, 88 A.3d 1101, 1116 (R.I. 2014).

                                        - 17 -
argues that the state did not provide a proper foundation to establish that the

statements by Iliana to Nurse Plante were made for the purpose of medical

diagnosis or treatment pursuant to Rule 803(4). The defendant further contends

that, even if there had been a proper foundation, certain portions of Nurse Plante’s

testimony assigned fault and narrated details, including defendant’s name, which

portions were not connected with Iliana’s treatment and, therefore, were not

admissible under Rule 803(4).

      For its part, the state argues that “issues other than [Nurse Plante’s]

mentioning defendant’s name have been waived and are not properly before this

Court for review.” As for the mentioning of defendant’s name, the state notes that

“identity was not a disputed issue in this case.” The state also argues that, “apart

from the identity issue, the nurse’s testimony was cumulative as Iliana testified

with specificity and was cross-examined at length regarding the events of that

evening.” In the same vein, the state contends that if “any aspect of [Nurse

Plante’s] testimony was erroneously admitted, it was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt considering the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.”

                                         A

                         The State’s Waiver Argument

      With respect to its contention that issues other than Nurse Plante’s

mentioning defendant’s name have been waived, the state argues that “[a]lthough

                                       - 18 -
defendant did initially mention hearsay as the basis of his objection, during the

ensuing side bar, he focused the trial justice’s attention to the specific reason for

his hearsay objection – arguing that ‘identifying a perpetrator’ had no connection

to medical diagnosis and treatment.” On that basis, the state contends that all

issues except the one involving the naming of defendant as the perpetrator are not

properly before this Court because defendant “never argued that other details

allegedly unrelated to medical diagnosis and treatment * * * were improperly

admitted or that an improper foundation was established to introduce any patient

history as he now argues on appeal * * *.” By contrast, it is defendant’s position

that his objection “was specific enough to focus the trial justice in on the hearsay

issues—the same hearsay issue [he] now asserts on appeal.”

      This Court has “repeatedly indicated that it adheres to what is commonly

called the ‘raise or waive’ rule—i.e., we do not consider issues on appeal which

were not raised and properly presented during proceedings in the court below.”

DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Company, 26 A.3d 585, 628 (R.I. 2011); see also

State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I. 2011) (“It is well-settled that this

Court will not review issues that were not presented to the trial court in such a

posture as to alert the trial justice to the question being raised.”) (internal quotation

marks omitted); State v. Moreno, 996 A.2d 673, 684 (R.I. 2010). In our opinion,

                                         - 19 -
defendant in this case sufficiently complied with the strictures of the “raise or

waive” rule.

      The trial transcript reflects that defendant clearly objected on the ground of

hearsay.11 And, significantly, he added that “the information being provided by the

patient [is] supposed to be for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment * * *.”

He also noted that “identifying a perpetrator [has] no connection to medical * * *.”

Therefore, although defendant did not, in so many words, argue that the state had

not established a sufficient foundation for the introduction of Iliana’s statements to

Nurse Plante, we are more than satisfied that, in the context of this case,

defendant’s objection was sufficiently focused so as to “alert the trial justice to the

question being raised” and to allow her to evaluate the objection on that basis.

Figuereo, 31 A.3d at 1289 (quoting Pollard v. Acer Group, 870 A.2d 429, 433

(R.I. 2005)). The defendant’s appeal primarily focuses on whether Nurse Plante’s

testimony, which paraphrased statements made to her by Iliana on the day of the

alleged sexual assault detailing what had happened to her, fell within the Rule

11
        When defense counsel interposed an objection during the testimony of Nurse
Plante, the trial justice asked: “What is your ground?” Defense counsel’s response
in its entirety was as follows:

               “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: My ground is hearsay, Your
               Honor. This is supposed to be -- the information being
               provided by the patient, it’s supposed to be for purposes
               of medical diagnosis and treatment and identifying a
               perpetrator, no connection to medical --”

                                        - 20 -
803(4) exception to the hearsay rule; and it is clear to us that this issue was

sufficiently referenced in defendant’s objection.     Accordingly, we are of the

opinion that defendant’s arguments on appeal relative to Rule 803(4) were not

waived and are properly before this Court.

                                         B

                   Nurse Plante’s Testimony and Rule 803(4)

               1. The Foundation for Nurse Plante’s Testimony

      We next must determine whether the state provided an adequate foundation

to establish that Iliana’s statements as testified to by Nurse Plante were properly

admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Rule 803(4).

      In making this determination we are mindful of the following statement from

a previous case: “[T]he simple fact that a statement could be helpful in diagnosis is

not in itself sufficient for admission under Rule 803(4); there must be a proper

foundation establishing that the challenged statements were in fact made for the

purpose of treatment or diagnosis.” State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172, 188 (R.I. 2014)

(first emphasis in original; second emphasis added). After carefully reviewing the

record in the instant case, it is our opinion that the statements of Iliana that were

                                       - 21 -
relayed by Nurse Plante “were in fact made for the purpose of treatment or

diagnosis.” Id. (emphasis added).12

      We begin by directing attention to the crystalline language of the Rule. In

pertinent part, Rule 803(4) makes admissible the following:

             “Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or
             treatment and describing * * * past or present symptoms,
             pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character
             of the cause or external source thereof insofar as
             reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment * * *.”

It is important to note that the focus of the just-quoted language is on the purpose

for which a person consults with someone deemed to be capable of providing

medical diagnosis or treatment. See State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022, 1031 (R.I.

12
       The contrast between the facts in State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172 (R.I. 2014),
and those in the present case is striking. The defendant in that case had been
arrested on or about February 23, 2010, but it was not until March 3 that Amy
Goldberg, M.D., performed her examination of the complaining witness
(pseudonymed “Jessica”). Watkins, 92 A.3d at 177-78. Doctor Goldberg is
identified in the Watkins opinion as “a pediatrician at Hasbro Children’s Hospital
and the supervisor of the Child Protection Program, a program that evaluates
children who are potential victims of maltreatment.” Id. at 178. It was during that
examination that “Jessica recounted a lengthy history of sexual abuse at the hands
of [the defendant in that case].” Id. Significantly, this Court in Watkins went out of
its way to note that Dr. Goldberg “did not specifically testify that the statements
Jessica made about her mounting fear of [the defendant in that case] or those
regarding the exchange of sex for school attendance were made for the purpose of
diagnosis or treatment.” Id. at 188.
       By contrast, in the present case, Iliana chose to go to Kent County Hospital
on the same day that the sexual assault had allegedly occurred; and on that same
day, she described to Nurse Plante what had happened. Also, Nurse Plante’s
testimony makes it clear that she was alert to the possible need for diagnosis or
treatment of Iliana’s complaints as well as the need to fulfill her forensic role.

                                        - 22 -
2004) (“A declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with

seeking diagnosis or treatment.”).      We have commented that “[t]he rationale

behind [the Rule 803(4)] exception is that ‘a person will presumably be truthful to

a physician from whom he expects to receive medical attention.’” State v. Benitez,

266 A.3d 1221, 1227 (R.I. 2022) (quoting State v. Pina, 455 A.2d 313, 315 (R.I.

1983)).

      It is clear to us, having carefully reviewed the record in its vital context, that

Nurse Plante’s testimony falls within the parameters of Rule 803(4). The record

reveals that, before ever going to the police station to file charges, Iliana chose to

go to Kent County Hospital, being taken there by her mother and aunt on the very

day of the alleged sexual assault. Once at the hospital, she described to Nurse

Plante in some detail what had allegedly happened to her. It is a completely

logical inference that Iliana did so for the purpose of obtaining whatever relief the

nurse and the hospital could provide—namely such diagnosis or treatment as might

be appropriate, whether it be through traditional hands-on medical intervention or

the prescription of medication or intelligent and supportive counsel from a medical

professional.13 In other words, Iliana’s statements were clearly “made for purposes

13
      The following exchange between Iliana and the prosecutor is noteworthy:

             “[PROSECUTOR]: Despite being uncomfortable about
             everything, why did you tell your aunt and your mom?

                                        - 23 -
of medical diagnosis or treatment” and, therefore, are of the type referenced in

Rule 803(4).14

      It is noteworthy that Iliana went to the hospital in the company of her mother

and aunt after she had been throwing up for hours and had been feeling ill. She

testified that she had provided her mother and aunt with details about the alleged

            “[ILIANA]: Because they needed to know, and I was in a
            lot of pain.”

       For her part, Nurse Plante testified that, when called upon as a nurse to
speak with a person complaining of a sexual assault, in addition to conducting a
forensic exam, she also speaks with the patient for two reasons: (1) to try “to get
what they’re saying happened[,] to understand what they’re saying” and (2) “to
also offer support after.”
14
       The case of State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2004), is radically
distinguishable from the instant case. In the course of holding that the statements
to the certified school psychologist by the alleged victim (pseudonymed “Mary”)
should not have been admitted, this Court in Lynch wrote as follows:

             “There must * * * be a proper foundation showing that
            the statements in question were made for the purposes of
            medical diagnosis or treatment. Here, Mary did not seek
            out the psychologist for a diagnosis or treatment of her
            problems; rather, the psychologist sought out Mary.
            * * * [T]here was no showing that Mary’s purpose in
            making the statements was for diagnosis or treatment
            from [the psychologist] * * *.” Lynch, 854 A.2d at
            1031-32 (internal quotation marks omitted).

       By contrast, in the instant case, the record is clear that Iliana went to the
hospital of her own volition and that she did so even before going to law
enforcement. Her purpose in doing so was to obtain medical attention relative to
the fact that she was “in a lot of pain,” had been vomiting, and “had bruises all
over.”

                                       - 24 -
sexual assault and the fact that she was “in a lot of pain” and “had bruises all over”

and that they then “took [her] to the hospital.” She further testified that at the

hospital she told Nurse Plante that she had been vomiting, and she described the

pain that she was feeling at the time.

      We are unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that the statements at issue

“centered on reporting a crime, not treating a medical condition * * *.” Iliana was

brought to the hospital by her mother and her aunt after she had explained to them

that she had been sexually assaulted and that she was “in a lot of pain.”

Significantly, at that point in time, Iliana had not reported the alleged sexual

assault to the police. Nurse Plante testified that, upon their first meeting, Iliana

“was very anxious, shaking, [and] disheveled.” She explained that Iliana “would

answer [her] questions, but didn’t elaborate a lot,” opining that “[i]t just seemed

like she kind of wanted to get in and out.” Furthermore, in addition to describing

the alleged sexual assault, Iliana complained to Nurse Plante that “her neck and

back were hurting her,” and she also “claimed to just feel very sick, nauseous and

had been vomiting, she said, all day.”

      It is clear to us from our review of the record that Nurse Plante was, in

effect, wearing two hats when she met with Iliana. While Nurse Plante was

undeniably collecting potential evidence in accordance with her forensic role, the

record additionally reflects that she was also paying attention to the medical

                                         - 25 -
symptoms and concerns being disclosed to her by Iliana—who, it must be

emphasized, had opted to come to the hospital very soon after the alleged assault.15

See United States v. Gonzalez, 533 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the

“forensic function” performed by the nurse in that case “did not obliterate her role

as a nurse, in a hospital”). See generally State v. Tsosie, 516 P.3d 1116 (N.M.

2022).

      We are satisfied that the vast majority of statements which Iliana provided to

Nurse Plante during their colloquy were pertinent to Nurse Plante’s professional

consideration of potential diagnosis or treatment options for Iliana because those

statements provided relevant background information as to the cause of Iliana’s

pain and other physical complaints, including her distressed mental state. See

Benitez, 266 A.3d at 1229 (holding that there was “no reversible error in the trial

justice’s determination that the statements at issue were ‘inextricably intertwined’

with [the doctor’s] examination and with her need to obtain all the reasonably

pertinent information needed to treat [the complaining witness]”); see also United

States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954, 957-58 (8th Cir. 2001) (“In general, a patient’s

15
      A hospital is by definition a place where a person “in a lot of pain” would go
to seek medical diagnosis or treatment. The American Heritage Dictionary defines
“hospital” as “[a] facility that provides emergency, inpatient, and usually
outpatient medical care for sick or injured people.” The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language 850 (5th ed. 2011).

                                       - 26 -
statement describing how an injury occurred is pertinent to a physician’s diagnosis

and treatment * * *.”).

      It is true that Nurse Plante did testify as to what Iliana said about what

defendant refers to as “the details of the alleged assault.” The point is, however,

that the bulk of those “details” were pertinent to the nurse’s role of providing

diagnosis and treatment. For example, such details as Iliana’s statements to the

nurse that the alleged assailant “used his fingers inside of her vagina” and that “[a]t

some point she was bitten and her hair had been pulled” are instances of

information that clearly would assist the nurse in assessing the patient’s overall

status (both physical and emotional) so that she could properly carry out her

diagnostic and treatment role to provide patient-centered care. Moreover, even less

obviously relevant details (like the allegation that Iliana was pushed down on a

mattress or had her pants pulled down) were part and parcel of the explanation that

Iliana was providing to the nurse as to why she was experiencing physical pain and

was in such an emotionally agitated state.16

      We have meticulously scrutinized the record in this case, taking into account

defendant’s well-articulated legal arguments.       In the end, however, we have

concluded that (with the exception of the assigning of fault issue discussed infra)

16
       It is important to bear in mind that Nurse Plante was confronted with a
patient who was clearly in an unsettled emotional state in addition to the fact that
she presented with perceptible physical issues. Unquestionably, part of the nurse’s
role in such a situation was to deal with the patient’s emotional state.

                                        - 27 -
the trial justice acted within her discretion in admitting the testimony of Nurse

Plante. See State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228, 234 (R.I. 2008) (“[Q]uestions as to the

admissibility vel non of evidence are confided to the sound discretion of the trial

justice, and this Court will not interfere with a trial justice’s decision in that regard

unless there was a clear abuse of discretion and the evidence was both prejudicial

and irrelevant.”). We are satisfied that the state provided a sufficient foundation to

support the conclusion that Iliana articulated her statements to Nurse Plante for the

purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment, even if Nurse Plante was

simultaneously performing a forensic function.

                                2. Harmless Error17

      Although we have, after careful scrutiny of the record, concluded that we

should affirm the discretionary decision of the trial justice to admit Nurse Plante’s

testimony under Rule 803(4), we recognize that the question is close. However,

we hasten to indicate that, even if we had reached a contrary conclusion and

decided that the trial justice erred, we would have considered such error to

constitute harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.

      The basic standard for determining whether an error is harmless has been

articulated as follows: “In order to meet the harmless-error test, there must be

17
       In this section of this opinion, we prescind from the portion of Nurse
Plante’s testimony which identifies defendant by name as the person who
committed the alleged sexual assault. That issue we address in the next section of
this opinion.

                                         - 28 -
proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to

the verdict obtained.’” State v. Mercurio, 89 A.3d 813, 822 (R.I. 2014) (quoting

State v. Smith, 446 A.2d 1035, 1036 (R.I. 1982)).

      Cumulative evidence is evidence that tends “to prove the same point to

which other evidence has been offered.” Benitez, 266 A.3d at 1229 (quoting Lynch,

854 A.2d at 1032); see also Watkins, 92 A.3d at 189. We have similarly stated that

“the admission of hearsay evidence is not prejudicial when the evidence is merely

cumulative and when [the] defendant’s guilt is sufficiently established by proper

evidence.” State v. Robinson, 989 A.2d 965, 979 (R.I. 2010) (quoting Lynch, 854

A.2d at 1032); see also Benitez, 266 A.3d at 1229; State v. Micheli, 656 A.2d 980,

982 (R.I. 1995); State v. Angell, 122 R.I. 160, 168, 405 A.2d 10, 14 (1979). We

have further indicated that “[t]he test to be applied is a retrospective one,

administered at the close of all the evidence to determine whether the admission of

certain evidence was harmless in light of all the evidence admitted on that point.”

Benitez, 266 A.3d at 1229 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v.

Johnson, 13 A.3d 1064, 1068 (R.I. 2011) (“[T]here is an inescapable conclusion

that, even if there were a question about the admissibility of [certain] testimony,

* * * such testimony was merely cumulative and therefore not prejudicial to [the

defendant].”); State v. Ramirez, 936 A.2d 1254, 1267 (R.I. 2007) (“Viewing the

abundant evidence in this case that supports the jury’s verdict, we are satisfied that

                                        - 29 -
admitting [a particular] out-of-court statement amounts, at best, to harmless

error.”).

       Nurse Plante’s relatively brief testimony summarizing the statements that

Iliana made to her was simply a condensed mirroring of Iliana’s own lengthy trial

testimony, which spanned 183 pages of trial transcript and was highly detailed. See

Benitez, 266 A.3d at 1229 (noting that the testimony of the doctor in that case was

“simply a repetition of [the complaining witness’s] own lengthy testimony which

was highly specific”). Significantly, Nurse Plante did not opine as to the veracity

or credibility of Iliana’s statements. See id. at 1229-30; Lynch, 854 A.2d at 1033.

Furthermore, Officer Maycock testified that he found defendant “naked from the

waist down” and that his “genitalia was erect.” He further testified that defendant

stated that “[h]e was just trying to have sex with [Iliana].” Additionally, Sgt.

Martin testified that defendant also stated that he “was horny and he tried to have

sex with [Iliana] but that they didn’t have sex.” Accordingly, because the jury had

before it Iliana’s own extensive testimony as well as the testimony of Officer

Maycock and Sgt. Martin in addition to the photographs of Iliana’s injuries, and

the evidence of defendant’s several inculpatory communications made subsequent

to the alleged sexual assault, we are satisfied that the statements at issue were

cumulative evidence, the admittance of which was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt. See Benitez, 266 A.3d at 1229-30.

                                      - 30 -
                    3. Statements Assigning Fault to Defendant

      The defendant vigorously contends that certain portions of Iliana’s

statements as recalled by Nurse Plante in her rendition of Iliana’s statements to her

were not pertinent to Iliana’s medical care. Notably, defendant points to the

testimony to the effect that “James White, identified by name, pushed [Iliana] on

the mattress, pulled her clothing off, assaulted her by putting his fingers in her

vagina, and tried to put his penis in her mouth, all while she was screaming.” The

defendant contends that such statements: (1) were “about assigning blame and

describing Mr. White’s purported wrongdoing;” and (2) “lacked indicia of

reliability” because they “centered on reporting a crime, not treating a medical

condition * * *.”

      This Court has held that “[s]tatements that narrate details unconnected with

either diagnosis or treatment * * * are inadmissible unless they fall under another

hearsay exception.” State v. Gaspar, 982 A.2d 140, 151 (R.I. 2009); see also

Watkins, 92 A.3d at 188; In re Andrey G., 796 A.2d 452, 456 (R.I. 2002).

Moreover, “[w]hen statements about causation enter the realm of assigning fault, it

is unlikely that the patient or the physician consider them related to diagnosis or

treatment.” Gaspar, 982 A.2d at 151.

      While we unhesitatingly indicated in Part IV.B.1 of this opinion that the trial

justice did not abuse her discretion in admitting the great bulk of Nurse Plante’s

                                       - 31 -
testimony concerning the statements made to her by Iliana, we nonetheless do

perceive error in her permitting Nurse Plante to include the fact that Iliana had

referred to defendant by name in the course of her description of the alleged sexual

assault and identified him as the perpetrator thereof. At the same time, however, it

is our view that that particular error on the part of the trial justice constitutes

harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. It is our view that this evidentiary error

was harmless as being “merely cumulative” in view of the fact that defendant’s

guilt was “sufficiently established by proper evidence.” Robinson, 989 A.2d at 979

(quoting Lynch, 854 A.2d at 1032).

      It is also noteworthy that the identity of defendant was not in dispute at the

trial. Although defendant did not testify, defense counsel, in both his opening

statement and his closing argument, sought to convince the jury that the evidence

showed that there had been fighting between defendant and Iliana, but that no

sexual contact had occurred. In other words, the jury was made aware from the

outset that defendant was the person involved in the incident in which the alleged

sexual assault occurred.    And Iliana made the same accusation in her direct

testimony.

       For these reasons, it is our view that the fact that Nurse Plante in her

testimony mentioned that Iliana had said that the alleged sexual assault was

committed by the defendant was clearly harmless cumulative evidence.

                                       - 32 -
                                        V

                                   Conclusion

      For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court. The record may be returned to that tribunal.

      Chief Justice Suttell, with whom Justice Long joins, concurring.

Although I concur with the majority’s ultimate conclusion affirming the judgment

of the Superior Court, I part company with its analysis of the admission of Nurse

Plante’s testimony under Rule 803(4) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence as an

exception to the hearsay rule for statements made for the purposes of medical

diagnosis or treatment. In my judgment, the state failed to provide an adequate

foundation for the admission of the statements made by Iliana to Nurse Plante.

      The majority begins its analysis of the Rule 803(4) issue with pertinent

language from State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172 (R.I. 2014): “[T]he simple fact that a

statement could be helpful in diagnosis is not in itself sufficient for admission

under Rule 803(4); there must be a proper foundation establishing that the

challenged statements were in fact made for the purposes of treatment or

diagnosis.” Watkins, 92 A.3d at 188. The majority then goes on to enunciate the

rule, and from that closer examination of the language, determines that the purpose

for seeking care is the touchstone for a Rule 803(4) analysis—the rationale being

                                      - 33 -
that “a person will presumably be truthful to a physician from whom he expects to

receive medical attention[,]” which eradicates the unreliability that typically

plagues hearsay statements. State v. Pina, 455 A.2d 313, 315 (R.I. 1983).

      Although the patient’s initial motivation for pursuing treatment is

undoubtedly relevant, the flip side of that coin is “whether what has been related

by the patient will assist or is helpful in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s

ailment.” State v. Gaspar, 982 A.2d 140, 151 (R.I. 2009) (brackets omitted)

(quoting In re Andrey G., 796 A.2d 452, 456 (R.I. 2002)). To admit statements

under the Rule 803(4) exception to the hearsay rule, the state must lay an adequate

foundation to demonstrate that these justifications for admission are present in the

witness’s testimony. See id. at 153 (noting that the admissibility of statements

under Rule 803(4) “undoubtedly will depend in large measure on the foundational

testimony”).    Otherwise, the statements should be excluded as inadmissible

hearsay. Reviewing this Court’s caselaw pursuant to Rule 803(4), I conclude that

the foundation here was lacking.

      The majority concludes that, because Iliana visited Kent County Hospital in

the immediate aftermath of her alleged assault, the purpose for her visit was to

receive “whatever relief the nurse and the hospital could provide[.]” The majority

also emphasizes the fact that Iliana was experiencing physical pain and discomfort

                                        - 34 -
at the time she went to the hospital and that she conveyed these symptoms to Nurse

Plante.

      I agree that Iliana’s complaints to Nurse Plante about her pain, nausea, and

vomiting indicate Iliana’s perception that Nurse Plante was in a position to offer

her treatment. However, the testimony shows that Nurse Plante’s primary role was

to assess Iliana’s physical state and collect evidence to be transferred to law

enforcement. The majority acknowledges that Nurse Plante was “wearing two

hats[,]” but clearly her forensic hat took precedence.

      By her own testimony, Nurse Plante’s role as the resource nurse was to

administer a “sex assault forensic exam[,]” which, she explained, involves a box to

establish a chain of custody with law enforcement for the evidence—i.e., swabs,

blood, urine, clothes—obtained during the exam. Nurse Plante made clear that all

of the information from the exam is then routed directly to the police department.

During an exam, Nurse Plante went on, she speaks with the patient to understand

what happened during the incident and potentially to “offer support after.” Nurse

Plante clarified, however, that any “long-term care” falls outside her purview. She

also stated that, although she took blood and urine samples from Iliana, the actual

testing of those samples was not something she “deal[s] with[.]”

      Of additional note is Nurse Plante’s testimony that, when she first

encountered Iliana, she explained the “lengthy procedure” that would ensue.

                                        - 35 -
Specifically, Nurse Plante told Iliana that “the information [Iliana] gave [Nurse

Plante] would not leave * * * until it’s locked up and secured.” Moreover, Nurse

Plante stated that Iliana “seemed like she kind of wanted to get in and out.”

Overall, these statements suggest that the interaction between Nurse Plante and

Iliana was somewhat transactional and that Iliana understood that the results

yielded from the exam would be passed on to the police. All of this signals that the

forensic aspect of the exam subsumed any general “support” Nurse Plante may

have offered.

      While the majority “unhesitatingly” concludes that there was no abuse of

discretion in admitting much of Nurse Plante’s testimony, I view this as a much

closer case. Nurse Plante’s multifaceted role is not something this Court should

have to tease out after poring over the trial testimony. It is the prosecutor’s job to

lay the proper foundation for the bounds of hearsay testimony given by the state’s

witness. See In re Rylee A., 233 A.3d 1040, 1050 (R.I. 2020) (“The proponent of

the evidence must lay a proper foundation establishing that the statements in the

record were made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.”).

      In State v. Watkins, we held that the foundation was improperly laid because

the doctor, a child-abuse specialist, did not explain how the victim’s statements

about her fear of her abuser factored into the doctor’s treatment. Watkins, 92 A.3d

at 188. At trial, the doctor conceded that her evaluations of the victim “[were]

                                        - 36 -
more centered on the physical trauma[,]” even though her typical exams often

contained a psychological component. Id.        Nevertheless, this Court held that,

without a foundation to tether the statements concerning psychological trauma

directly to the medical diagnosis of that specific patient, the doctor’s testimony

lacked an adequate foundation to admit the statements under Rule 803(4). Id.

      Here, Nurse Plante’s testimony does not indicate how Iliana’s statements

identifying defendant or how her account of screaming, being pushed, etc.,

impacted Nurse Plante’s performance of the forensic exam. This harkens back to

our reasoning in State v. Gaspar, wherein we perceived an insufficient foundation

because “[t]he doctor did not provide any medical reason as to why she obtained

[the complainant’s] narrative.” Gaspar, 982 A.2d at 152. Under the facts of that

case, we gleaned that the testimony “suggest[ed] forensics, not medicine.” Id.

Therefore, we concluded that the statements fell outside the bounds of Rule 803(4).

Id. at 153.

      Indeed, this Court readily admits statements under Rule 803(4) where the

prosecutor elicits testimony from the state’s witness that establishes a clear

connection between the statements and the relevant diagnosis. See, e.g., State v.

Moten, 64 A.3d 1232, 1240 (R.I. 2013) (modeling an “evidentiary foundation laid

by the prosecutor [that] tracked the hearsay exception found in Rule 803(4)”). In

State v. Pierce, 689 A.2d 1030 (R.I. 1997), the doctor testified explicitly that the

                                       - 37 -
timing of the perpetrator’s last penetration of the victim was “significant [to her

diagnosis] for several reasons[,]” including that “the latest date of penetration

would determine how [the doctor] proceeded on the pelvic exam and the timing of

some of the laboratory tests.” Pierce, 689 A.2d at 1033 (brackets, internal

quotation marks, and deletions omitted). Likewise, in State v. Benitez, 266 A.3d

1221 (R.I. 2022), we recognized that the prosecutor and the trial justice

demonstrated “great effort * * * to ensure that [the doctor’s] testimony did not go

beyond that which is permitted under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception

to the hearsay rule * * *.” Benitez, 266 A.3d at 1228. Thus, we deemed that the

statements were handled properly under the rule. Id. It does not appear that similar

efforts to cabin the testimony were exercised here.

      I am unable to conclude that the mere possibility that Iliana would require

further “support” from Nurse Plante made the narrative statements about Iliana’s

assault pertinent to Nurse Plante’s “treatment” of her.        This connection is

uncomfortably tenuous, especially in light of our precedents that call for a more

apparent connection between the hearsay statement and the resulting medical

diagnosis. See, e.g., Pierce, 689 A.2d at 1033; Gaspar, 982 A.2d at 152; Watkins,

92 A.3d at 188; Moten, 64 A.3d at 1240.

      For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the trial justice erred in

allowing Nurse Plante to testify about the statements made to her by Iliana under

                                       - 38 -
Rule 803(4). Because I believe that such error was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt, however, I concur in the judgment.

                                      - 39 -
                                             STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                         SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                               Licht Judicial Complex
                                                 250 Benefit Street
                                               Providence, RI 02903

                                     OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case                            State v. James White.

                                         No. 2021-216-C.A.
Case Number
                                         (P1/17-1457A)

Date Opinion Filed                       June 30, 2023

                                         Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
                                         Long, JJ.

Written By                               Associate Justice William P. Robinson III

Source of Appeal                         Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court        Associate Justice Netti C. Vogel

                                         For State:

                                         Virginia M. McGinn
                                         Department of Attorney General
Attorney(s) on Appeal
                                         For Defendant:

                                         Kara J. Maguire
                                         Rhode Island Public Defender

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)