Douglas v. State, 3D04-2603.
| Decision Date | 09 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D04-2603.,3D04-2603. |
| Parties | John Richard DOUGLAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Gwendolyn Powell Braswell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Maria T. Armas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
John Richard Douglas appeals his conviction and sentence. The state cross-appeals the defendant's sentence. We affirm on appeal and on cross-appeal.
Appellant was charged with: sexual battery on a person under twelve years old (counts 1 and 2); lewd and lascivious molestation of a person under twelve years old (count 3); lewd and lascivious battery on a person over twelve and under sixteen years old (counts 4 and 5); and lewd and lascivious molestation on a person over twelve but under sixteen years old (count 6). The victim, appellant's stepdaughter, was thirteen at the time of trial. She testified that the abuse occurred on various occasions before and after she turned twelve, but she could not remember exact dates before she turned twelve.
The victim was taken to a rape center treatment center. The center's physician was allowed to testify as to the victim's history, as well as the findings from his physical examination. The appellant objected to the testimony regarding the history on the grounds of hearsay. The prosecutor asserted that the testimony was admissible under the medical diagnosis hearsay exception. The court overruled the objection. The physician then testified that the victim reported that she had been sexually abused two days before. His medical examination substantiated the victim's abuse allegations.
The appellant was acquitted of counts one through three and found guilty as charged of the remaining three charges. At sentencing, the state urged the court to impose consecutive 15 year sentences, because the victim had testified to several abuse incidents. Appellant argued that the evidence only established one criminal episode, as testified to by the physician, and therefore the appellant could only be sentenced on one count. The court sentenced appellant to fifteen years on each count to run concurrent. This appeal followed.
Appellant first argues on appeal that the trial court erred in permitting the physician's testimony under the medical diagnosis hearsay exception. We disagree. Section 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. (2003), creates a hearsay exception to statements made "for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment." The victim's statements to the physician that she had been sexually assaulted were reasonably pertinent to the physician's diagnosis or treatment. See Conley v. State, 620 So.2d 180, 184 (Fla.1993). This court has found such statements to be admissible. Brown v. State, 611 So.2d 540, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Pagan v. State, 599 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); State v. Ochoa, 576 So.2d 854, 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In this case, the physician's testimony was admissible under 90.803(4) because there was the requisite showing "(a) that the statements were made of the purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and (b) that the individual making the statements knew the statements were being made for this purpose." Ochoa, 576 So.2d at 856 (quoting Begley v. State, 483 So.2d 70, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)). The victim was taken to the treatment center for a medical exam and the physician conducted such an exam. Hence, the physician's testimony was admissible.
As his second issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him on each count. We agree with the state's assertion that this issue was not preserved for review by a specific objection. F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 (Fla.2003). Even if it had been preserved, it lacks merit because there was ample record evidence for Douglas to have been convicted on the three separate counts. "[T]he different acts of touching are to be viewed with reference to the spatial and temporal aspects of the surrounding circumstances in order to determine whether the defendant had time to pause, reflect and form a new criminal intent between occurrences." Paul v. State, 912 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Romano v. State
-
State v. Dort
...to the downward departure sentence. The sentencing issue has therefore not been preserved for appellate review. See Douglas v. State, 913 So.2d 1234, 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. ...
-
State v. Stephens, 1D13–0448.
...for appellate review where the State never objected to imposition of the downward departure sentence); see also Douglas v. State, 913 So.2d 1234, 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (appellate court declined to review claim of error in downward departure sentence because issue was unpreserved when the ......
-
Crimes
...child testified to different acts committed at different times, the defendant can be convicted on all three counts. Douglas v. State, 913 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) Fourth District Court of Appeal Defendant’s suicide attempt prior to his arrest on charges of lewd and lascivious molestat......
-
Evidence
...the purpose of diagnosis or treatment and the child making the statements knew they were being made for that purpose. Douglas v. State, 913 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) EVIDENCE 13-61 Evidence: Hearsay (90.801, et seq.) 13.6 In a sexual battery trial, hearsay from a nurse treating the vic......
-
Evidence
...fell from height, as opposed to falling while running on the ground, was important for purposes of medical diagnosis. Douglas v. State , 913 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2005). Pursuant to medical diagnosis hearsay exception, stepdaughter’s statements to rape treatment ce......
-
Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington's Originalism: Historical Arguments Showing Child Abuse Victims' Statements to Physicians Are Nontestimonial and Admissible as an Exception to the Confrontation Clause - Tom Harbison
...see also Ex parte C.L.Y., 928 So. 2d 1069 (Ala. 2005); People v. Cage, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 846 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004); Douglas v. State, 913 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005); People v. West, 823 N.E.2d 82 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005); Griner v. State, 899 A.2d 189 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006); Common......