Pickett v. United States, 00-CF-945.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-CF-945.,00-CF-945. |
| Parties | LORENZO PICKETT, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (F-5743-99)
(Hon. Wendell P. Gardner, Jr., Trial Judge)
Michael Z.C. Okpala for appellant.
Ann M. Carroll, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., United States Attorney, and John R. Fisher and Thomas J. Tourish, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before SCHWELB, FARRELL, and RUIZ, Associate Judges.
After a bench trial appellant was found guilty of two counts of committing lewd, indecent, or obscene acts and one count of misdemeanor sexual abuse,1 all arising from conduct directed to the child A.T. during the period from April through December of 1998. At the time, A.T. was at most ten years old and lived with her mother and siblings; appellant lived with them and shared a bedroom with the mother. The trial judge found that on two occasions during this period appellant committed indecent acts in the presence of the child and, on one occasion, engaged in sexual abuse via the statutory "sexual contact" of placing his mouth against her buttocks.
The sole issue warranting publication is appellant's contention that the trial court erroneously considered as evidence statements A.T. had made on videotape to a woman at the Children's Advocacy Center in April of 1999 describing appellant's sexual actions toward her, and similar statements she had made in a letter written (but not delivered) to her aunt several months earlier. The court ruled the contents of both statements admissible under the hearsay exception for past recollection recorded.
For a witness's out-of-court statement to be admissible under that exception:
(1) the witness must have had first-hand knowledge of the event;
(2) the written statement must be an original memorandum made at or near the time of the event and while the witness had a clear and accurate memory of it;
(3) the witness must lack a present recollection of the event; and
(4) the witness must vouch for the accuracy of the written memorandum.
Carey v. United States, 647 A.2d 56, 58 (D.C. 1994), citing Mitchell v. United States, 368 A.2d 514, 517-18 (D.C. 1977). At bottom, appellant challenges only the trial court's finding that the fourth requirement was met;2 he argues that A.T. in fact "repudiated" the prior statements at trial or, at the least, was so equivocal about their truth that she cannot be said to have vouched for their accuracy.
This court reviews a "trial court's [evidentiary] ruling[s] for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the exercise of discretion is clearly erroneous." Malloy v. United States, 797 A.2d 687, 690 (D.C. 2002) (excited utterance). Interpreting FED. R. EVID. 803 (5) (Recorded Recollection), one federal appellate court has explained:
Rule 803 (5) does not specify any particular method of establishing the . . . accuracy of the statement. It is not a sine qua non of admissibility that the witness actually vouch for the accuracy of the written memorandum. Admissibility is, instead, to be determined on a case-by-case basis upon a consideration . . . of factors indicating trustworthiness, or the lack thereof.
United States v. Porter, 986 F.2d 1014, 1017 (6th Cir. 1993). See also State v. Marcy, 680 A.2d 76, 79-80 (Vt. 1996) (adopting Porter's reasoning); State v. Alvarado, 949 P.2d 831, 836 (Ct. App. Wash. 1998). A leading commentator, while agreeing that no particular method of proving accuracy is required, would still require that "the witness acknowledge at trial the accuracy of the statement," but goes on to recognize that "[c]ourts have been relatively liberal in finding that the witness has acknowledged the accuracy of a prior statement, particularly where the witness is apparently hostile or reluctant to testify but does not repudiate the statement." 2 JOHN W. STRONG ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 283, at 246 (5th ed. 1999) (emphasis added).
In keeping with our decisions in Carey and Mitchell, supra, we adhere to the rule that the witness must confirm the accuracy of the recorded statement, but we also agree that unless the witness has expressly repudiated it on the stand the trial judge may consider all of the circumstances in finding the requisite confirmation, including the demeanor of the witness in court — evincing, for example, hostility or reluctance to testify — as well as the conditions under which the out-of-court statement was made. See Marcy, 680 A.2d at 79 ().
Judge Gardner ruled consistently with these standards in admitting the contents of A.T.'s videotaped statement and letter. Before doing so, he established that she could only partially recall the events in dispute3 and that, as to the remainder, her memory could not be refreshed by watching the videotape, which she did. He then allowed her to be questioned about whether her statements in the taped interview and the letter were truthful. Her answers on cross-examination were at first unequivocal:
Q. So you're saying what was on the video —
A. What was on the video was true.
Q. When you said it on the video?
A. Yes.
Q. It wasn't true?
A. I said it was true.
* * * *
Q. You also said that it's not true, what you said on the video, that didn't happen.[4]
A. It did happen.
A.T. later equivocated by denying — contrary to her recorded statements — that appellant had touched "any of [her] private parts," and agreed with defense counsel that she had told the prosecutor outside the courtroom (see note 4, supra) that what she said on the videotape "was not true." But on redirect examination she acknowledged her earlier testimony that her taped statements were "correct," stating that she had meant by this "[t]hat it was true."5
The trial judge found that A.T.'s testimony was at most equivocal in recanting her former statements, inasmuch as "she never wavered," for example, "from the proposition of [his] trying to take [her] underwear down," but appeared to recant other portions. More importantly, the judge explained at length that he did not believe A.T.'s recantation because her demeanor on the stand revealed to him a child "under some compulsion to say something other than the truth," a "pensive[ness]" and "extreme anxiety" signifying that she was "under some kind of pressure" to disavow her former statements. And he contrasted this with her relatively relaxed and forthright demeanor on the videotape and the circumstances generally supporting the truthfulness of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial