People v. Meeboer
| Decision Date | 21 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 119408 |
| Citation | 449 N.W.2d 124,181 Mich.App. 365 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Edward MEEBOER, Defendant-Appellant. 181 Mich.App. 365, 449 N.W.2d 124 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[181 MICHAPP 366] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Robert E. Weiss, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief, Appellate Div., and Edwin R. Brown, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Barbara J. Safran, Southfield, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before GRIBBS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ.
Defendant, Douglas Edward Meeboer, appeals as of right from a jury conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b(1)(a); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2)(1)(a), for the rape of a six-year-old girl whom we shall identify as "Amy." On appeal to this Court, defendant's conviction was affirmed. People v. Meeboer, unpublished[181 MICHAPP 367] per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, decided April 6, 1988 (Docket No. 97072). On application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded for reconsideration in light of People v. LaLone, 432 Mich. 103, 437 N.W.2d 611 (1989). 432 Mich. 930, 442 N.W.2d 633 (1989). After considering LaLone and applying it to the facts of the instant case, we again affirm.
On January 9, 1986, defendant and his family, the Meeboers, picked up Amy at her home. The Meeboers, including defendant, were friends with Amy's mother and planned to baby-sit Amy for a couple of days. At the time of the offense, Amy was six years old, defendant was twenty.
Amy was with the Meeboer family from January 9, 1986, to January 11, 1986. At some time during this period, she and defendant were left alone in the Meeboers' home.
At trial, six-year-old Amy testified that, while she and the defendant were alone watching television, defendant "Dougie" Meeboer "put" his "privates" in her mouth and "put" his "privates" on and in her "privates." Amy further testified that defendant "put" his hand on her "privates" and, after taking it out, put his "privates" on her again and "took it out." Defendant then pulled up his pants and told Amy not to tell anyone.
Amy returned home on January 11, 1986, and did not mention the incident to her mother. A little over a week later, on January 20, 1986, Amy was staying with her aunt and uncle. While her aunt was bathing Amy, she noticed that Amy's vagina was sore. When her aunt first asked Amy if someone had "played naughty with her," Amy said [181 MICHAPP 368] no, but later told her aunt that "Dougie had messed with her." 1
The aunt and uncle then contacted Amy's mother and the police. Amy's mother examined Amy and found her vagina to be red and puffy. Amy's mother proceeded to take Amy to the hospital.
On January 22, 1986, Amy was examined by Dr. Karen A. Bentley, a pediatrician and child abuse specialist at the Hurly Medical Center in Flint. At trial, Dr. Bentley testified that at the time of her examination, Amy's vagina was open quite wide and her hymen was torn and escalloped. Amy's vagina measured nine millimeters and anything above five is evidence of penetration. Although Dr. Bentley could not tell how long ago penetration had occurred, it was her opinion that there was both penile and digital penetration of Amy's vagina.
Over objection, Dr. Bentley testified that during the examination Amy said "Dougie" was the man who had genital contact with her. This testimony by the pediatrician was consistent with the victim's own trial testimony in which she had identified the defendant as the perpetrator.
On appeal, defendant argues that the admission of Amy's statement to her physician constitutes reversible error. We disagree.
In our original opinion, we held that the testimony of Dr. Bentley concerning the victim's statement identifying the defendant as the perpetrator was admissible as a hearsay exception under MRE 803(4). On this issue we stated:
[181 MICHAPP 369] Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by allowing, over his objection, testimony of the six-year-old victim's examining physician which related the child's account of the sexual assault and identified defendant as the perpetrator. We disagree.
The decision to admit evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. King, 158 Mich App 672, 678; 405 NW2d 116 (1987). MRE 803 provides in pertinent part:
We hold that the statements came within the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule and were therefore admissible. Here, there is nothing to indicate that the child's statements to the physician were other than as a patient seeking treatment. People v. Wilkins, 134 Mich App 39, 44; 349 NW2d 815 (1984), lv den 422 Mich 862 (1985); People v. Creith, 151 Mich App 217, 226-227; 390 NW2d 234 (1986).
Secondly, the information elicited from the child was necessary to her diagnosis and treatment. [Wilkins, supra 134 Mich.App.] at 45 The examining physician, Dr. Bentley, was a pediatrician and Director of the Child Abuse Team at Hurley Hospital. She explained that her responsibilities included examining the children to determine if their injuries have been sustained as the result of abuse. Information as to what happened and by whom gives her an [181 MICHAPP 370] idea of what to ask and look for during the examination and to assess how the child is handling the sexual abuse so that she can allay any fears or apprehensions during the examination. By doing so, Dr. Bentley is able to diagnose and treat a victim of sexual assault. Consequently, the source of the sexual assault as well as the child's account of the incident were necessary to Dr. Bentley's diagnosis and treatment. 1
Subsequent to the release of our opinion, the Supreme Court decided People v. LaLone, supra, which addressed the scope of hearsay exception MRE 803(4) as it relates to statements made by a victim to a psychologist during the course of a psychological evaluation. In ruling that such statements were not admissible, the Supreme Court placed heavy reliance upon the fact that MRE 803(4) limits the hearsay exception to statements made for medical treatment and statements made for medical diagnosis in connection with treatment:
A psychologist treats mental and emotional disorders rather than physical ones. 4 Lying to one's health care provider about symptoms and their general causes would be detrimental to the patient, and it is, in part, for this reason that we permit the introduction of such hearsay statements. It is therefore fair to say that, while medical patients may fabricate descriptions of their complaint and the general character of the causes of these complaints, we would think it less likely [181 MICHAPP 371] that they will do so than psychological patients. In addition, although there are psychological tests, fabrications of physical complaints would seem to be far easier to discover through empirical tests than are fabrications which might be heard by an examining psychologist. Indeed, statements which are untrue, and which the examining psychologist knows to be untrue, may nevertheless serve as a basis for accurate diagnosis and treatment. Thus, statements made in the course of treatment of psychological disorders may not always be as reliable as those made in the course of the treatment of physical disorders.
[LaLone, supra at 109-110, 437 N.W.2d 611 opinion by Brickley, J.].
As further support for the exclusion of the statement in LaLone, the Supreme Court stated that the victim's statement to her psychologist was not inherently reliable under the circumstances. The Court also questioned whether the identity of the perpetrator was reasonably necessary for the victim's psychological evaluation or psychological treatment.
On reconsideration, we find LaLone distinguishable from the instant case and not controlling. At the outset, we note LaLone involved hearsay statements made to a psychologist, not to a physician.
Second, unlike LaLone in which the statements were made in connection with a psychological evaluation, the victim's statement in the instant case was made in connection with her medical care and treatment.
[181 MICHAPP 372] Third, in contrast to LaLone in which the Supreme Court questioned whether the identity of the perpetrator was reasonably necessary in connection with the victim's psychological evaluation, we have no doubt in the instant case that the identity of the perpetrator was reasonably necessary for Amy's medical care and treatment. We note that following a rape the identity of the perpetrator as the "inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof" (MRE 803 ) is medically necessary to treat or rule out the transmission of venereal diseases or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. With venereal diseases at epidemic levels and with the rapid spread of AIDS, the perpetrator of every rape needs to be identified and evaluated as part of the victim's care and treatment. Accordingly, we hold that in cases of rape the identity of the attacker is reasonably necessary for the victim's medical care and treatment.
Finally, we conclude that the victim's statement to her physician was reliable. Although the Supreme Court in LaLone doubted the reliability of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Meeboer
...or diagnosis in connection with treatment. The declarant had complained of pelvic pain and was brought by her mother to see the doctor. In Meeboer, the six-year-old victim was examined by a physician after her uncle noticed her scratching her private parts and her aunt noticed redness and s......
-
Brock, In re
...we note that this Court is split with regard to the issue whether such statements are admissible. Compare People v. Meeboer, 181 Mich.App. 365, 449 N.W.2d 124 (1989), lv. gtd. 436 Mich. 880, 461 N.W.2d 484 (1990) (statements made to medical personnel identifying perpetrator admissible), wit......
-
Storms v. Storms, Docket No. 114023
...case. While a physician-psychologist distinction has been drawn with LaLone in a recent decision of this Court, People v. Meeboer, 181 Mich.App. 365, 449 N.W.2d 124 (1989), we find that the reasoning of the LaLone decision, when examined as a whole as opposed to piecemeal, renders such a di......
-
People v. Mosko
...fourteen-year-old stepdaughter, and remanded for a new trial, noting that a credibility contest was involved. In People v. Meeboer, 181 Mich.App. 365, 449 N.W.2d 124 (1989), lv. gtd. 436 Mich. 880, 461 N.W.2d 484 (1990), this Court held that statements made by a six-year-old victim to a phy......