Morgan v. Foretich
| Decision Date | 21 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | 87-2550,Nos. 87-2549,87-2558 and 87-2559,s. 87-2549 |
| Parties | , 25 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 881 Elizabeth MORGAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric A. FORETICH; Vincent Foretich; Doris Foretich, Defendants-Appellees. Hilary FORETICH, an Infant who sues Through her mother and next friend, Elizabeth MORGAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric A. FORETICH; Vincent Foretich; Doris Foretich, Defendants-Appellees. Elizabeth MORGAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric A. FORETICH; Vincent Foretich; Doris Foretich, Defendants-Appellants. Hilary FORETICH, an Infant who sues Through her mother and next friend, Elizabeth MORGAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric A. FORETICH; Vincent Foretich; Doris Foretich, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Mark Mitchell Katz (James E. Sharp, V. Thomas Lankford, Sharp, Green & Lankford, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellants.
Robert B. Machen, Fairfax, Va., for appellees.
Before POWELL, Associate Justice (Retired), United States Supreme Court, sitting by designation, and RUSSELL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan and her minor daughter Hilary Foretich, brought this action against the defendants, Dr. Eric Foretich and his parents, for damages arising out of the defendants' alleged sexual abuse of Hilary. Dr. Foretich counter-claimed for defamation and other damages caused by this lawsuit. The jury found for Dr. Foretich on Dr. Morgan's claims and for Dr. Morgan on Dr. Foretich's counter-claims. Plaintiffs appealed, defendants cross-appealed, and the appeals were consolidated for oral argument. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in excluding evidence that Hilary's sister had been sexually abused and in excluding all out-of-court statements made by the plaintiff, Hilary Foretich. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by excluding this evidence and we reverse and remand that portion of its judgment. However, the district court committed no error with regard to defendants' counter-claims and we affirm that part of its judgment.
Hilary Foretich was born in August 1982, the daughter of Dr. Eric Foretich and his third wife from whom he is now divorced, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan. Heather Foretich is three years older than Hilary and is the minor daughter of Dr. Foretich and his second wife. Dr. Foretich was awarded visitation rights with both children and the girls have frequently visited the Foretich home simultaneously.
In the summer of 1983, Dr. Morgan received a call from Heather's mother who expressed concern that the girls were possibly being abused during visitation periods with Dr. Foretich and his parents. Dr. Morgan became further alarmed when signs of physical abuse became apparent on Hilary and later when Hilary displayed an age-inappropriate understanding of sexual matters and began to make sexually explicit statements. After consulting specialists in the field of child sexual abuse, Dr. Morgan became convinced that Hilary was being abused during the visitation periods with Dr. Foretich and his parents. This action followed.
At trial, plaintiffs attempted to introduce out-of-court evidence showing that Hilary's sister, Heather, displayed similar signs of sexual abuse. Plaintiffs also sought to introduce statements made by Hilary to her mother and to a child psychologist. The district court excluded all evidence of this nature.
Plaintiffs contend that the district court committed reversible error in its evidentiary rulings. First, plaintiffs assert that evidence of Heather's abuse should have been admitted to show the identity of the perpetrator and to rebut claims that Hilary's injuries were accidental or self-inflicted. Second, plaintiffs argue that statements made by Hilary to her mother after Hilary returned from visitation with Dr. Foretich were admissible as excited utterances. Finally, plaintiffs contend that statements made by Hilary to her psychologist were admissible as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
Defendants respond by arguing evidence of sexual abuse suffered by Heather Foretich was properly excluded because of its potential for prejudicing the jury. Defendants further assert that all out-of-court statements made by Hilary Foretich were properly excluded because of hearsay considerations and because Hilary's age made her incompetent to testify as a witness.
Reported cases of child abuse in this country have increased dramatically in recent years. An estimated one in five females suffers from sexual abuse as a child. 1 Figures from 1976 to 1983 reflect an 852% increase in the number of child sexual abuse cases reported. 2 However, in two-thirds of child abuse cases, the incident is never even reported. 3 Even when the incident is reported, prosecution is difficult and convictions are few.
Much of this difficulty stems from the fact that methods of proof in child abuse cases are severely lacking. Often, the child is the only witness. Yet age may make the child incompetent to testify in court, and fear, especially when the perpetrator is a family member, may make the child unwilling or unable to testify.
Courts and legislatures alike have struggled with this deeply troubling problem. The courts have often been criticized for expanding existing hearsay exceptions beyond recognition 4 while several state legislatures have undertaken to create altogether new hearsay exceptions for the victims of child abuse. 5
In the form of a civil suit, the instant case squarely presents this Court with many of these difficult issues. In rendering this judgment, we are mindful of the common-sense admonition that "[w]hen the choice is between evidence which is less than best and no evidence at all, only clear folly would dictate an across-the-board policy of doing without." Fed.R.Evid. art. VIII advisory committee's note.
At trial, plaintiffs sought to introduce testimony by Dr. Charles Shubin, a pediatrician who was qualified as an expert in the field of child sexual abuse. Dr. Shubin had examined both Hilary and Heather Foretich and was prepared to testify that both girls had suffered sexual injuries and that the mechanism of injury was essentially the same in both cases. Plaintiffs also had numerous other professionals and lay witnesses who were prepared to testify that Heather had been sexually abused during visitation periods with the defendants.
The district court excluded all evidence of sexual abuse suffered by Heather Foretich concluding that such evidence was prejudicial and could not be allowed without a full scale trial on the allegations made by Heather. We disagree.
As a preliminary matter, the district court erred in concluding that a full scale trial would be required into allegations made by Heather Foretich. This Court has held that in applying Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence of other crimes need not be established by the "clear and convincing evidence" standard which some other courts have seen fit to apply. 6 Instead, "we have not imposed any 'clear and convincing evidence' standard in our application of Rule 404(b)" and "we decline to adopt such a requirement." United States v. Martin, 773 F.2d 579, 582 (4th Cir.1985). Rather, evidence of other crimes or acts will be admissible even absent clear and convincing proof of those other crimes or acts if the proffered evidence can meet the threshold requirements of Rule 404(b).
Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
This Court has held Rule 404(b) to be an "inclusionary rule" which " 'admits all evidence of other crimes [or acts] relevant to an issue in a trial except that which tends to prove only criminal disposition.' " United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 85 (4th Cir.1980) (emphasis added) (quoting J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence Sec. 404 at 404-41 and 404-42 (1979)).
The threshold requirements for admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) were recently stated by this Court in United States v. Lewis, 780 F.2d 1140 (4th Cir.1986). In Lewis, we stated the determinative questions to be (a) whether the proffered evidence is relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character, and (b) whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Id. at 1142.
The proffered evidence of sexual abuse suffered by Heather is admissible under the standard set forth in Lewis. First, the evidence was not offered to show the depravity of the defendants' character. Rather, this evidence was highly relevant to disputed issues in this case. Fundamentally, this evidence was essential in that it tended to identify the defendants as the perpetrators of the crime against Hilary since only the defendants had access to both girls. No other piece of evidence could have had a comparable probative impact as to the identity of Hilary's assailants. This evidence also negated several defenses raised by the defendants: Hilary's injuries were caused by Dr. Morgan; were fabricated by Dr. Morgan; or were caused by self-infliction. It has been suggested by some that, in child abuse cases, the inquiry should end here: "When prior acts are admitted to prove disputed issues in the case, such as the identity of the defendant, the absence of mistake or accident, or the defendant's intent, no violation of the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.S. v. Knighton
...v. Altgilbers, 109 N.M. 453, 463-64, 786 P.2d 680, 685-86 (Ct.App.1989) (quoting Morgan v. Fortech, 846 F.2d 941, 952 (4th Cir.1988) (Powell, J., ret. U.S.Sup.Ct. Justice, concurring and dissenting); see also State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 209, 735 P.2d 801, 809 (1987) (if young children......
-
State v. Altgilbers
...of Appeals, has authored a separate opinion summarizing the background, rationale, and content of this exception. Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941, 950-53 (4th Cir.1988). The exception is derived from a common law At common law, this exception traditionally was based on a dual rationale. Fi......
-
Hutton v. State
...treatment," are admissible as substantive evidence through the treating or diagnosing health care provider. See also Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941, 948-50 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.1985); State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 735 P.2d 801, 810 (......
-
State v. Edward Charles L.
...circumstances surrounding the alleged offenses. Finally, the issue of other sexual acts and their admissibility arose in Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941 (4th Cir.1988). In that case, a four-year-old female child and her mother brought civil action against the child's father and his parents......
-
Declarations
...to a defense psychiatrist was admissible where the defendant offered an insanity defense to a kidnapping charge. Morgan v. Foretich , 846 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1988). Even though a child may be incompetent to testify, this does not bar the admission of the child’s statements to a physician or ......
-
Witnesses
...was made, and the identification of the culprit, rather than recounting the substance of the complaint in full detail. Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1988). Trial court improperly excluded the complaints of a four-year-old child which were made immediately after coming home from......
-
Hearsay
...to a defense psychiatrist was admissible where the defendant offered an insanity defense to a kidnapping charge. Morgan v. Foretich , 846 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1988). Even though a child may be incompetent to testify, this does not bar the admission of the child’s statements to a physician or ......
-
Hearsay
...to a defense psychiatrist was admissible where the defendant offered an insanity defense to a kidnapping charge. Morgan v. Foretich , 846 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1988). Even though a child may be incompetent to testify, this does not bar the admission of the child’s statements to a physician or ......