State v. Benitez
| Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. 2018-240-C.A., (P2/14-2095A),2018-240-C.A. |
| Parties | STATE v. Juan P. BENITEZ. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Virginia M. McGinn, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Gary G. Pelletier, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
The defendant, Juan P. Benitez, appeals from a July 28, 2017 judgment of conviction and commitment on one count of second-degree child molestation entered following a jury trial. On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) "the trial court erred when it permitted [a physician testifying as an expert witness] to testify to hearsay statements unrelated to medical diagnosis or treatment;" and (2) "the trial court impermissibly allowed the state to mislead the jury by impeaching a witness with a statement he did not author, sign, or review."
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
On July 14, 2014, Mr. Benitez was charged by criminal information with one count of second-degree child molestation for having "engage[d] in sexual contact" with his biological daughter, Nancy,1 when she was "fourteen (14) years of age or under, in violation of [G.L. 1956] § 11-37-8.3 and § 11-37-8.4 * * *." A trial ultimately took place over seven days in March of 2017. We relate below the salient aspects of that trial.
Nancy testified that, at the time of trial, she was sixteen years old. At trial, she identified defendant as her biological father, and it was her testimony that she had two younger sisters who were also the biological children of defendant. She added that, when her parents separated, she lived with her mother. She further testified that her father lived with her grandmother, her six uncles, and one of her aunts in Providence.2 She went on to state that she saw defendant "most of the weekends" and that her sisters accompanied her on those visits.
It was then Nancy's testimony that, during those visits, her father would "take his penis, and put it in [her] butt and rub it there." She added that the abuse started when she was six years old. She stated that "in the beginning it would be like a game of some sort, to see who can get their clothes and get their pants off first." She testified that the abuse would "happen a lot[.]" She described a specific instance of abuse that purportedly occurred in the closet in her father's bedroom after she had taken a shower; it was her testimony that her sisters were in the same bedroom watching television at the time.
Nancy then testified that she told a cousin of hers about the abuse and that her cousin passed that information on to her own mother, who was Nancy's aunt. She added that, when her cousin made that disclosure, Nancy's grandmother was also present. She further stated that her grandmother "pull[ed her] aside" and asked if she was "sure" that her father was "not just playing around, playing a joke like he does sometimes * * *."
Nancy explained during her testimony that, on a particular occasion when a party was taking place, defendant "kept on calling" her and "tried to pull [her] into the bathroom;" she added that she "pulled away," cried, and told defendant that she "didn't want that anymore, and * * * didn't like it." It was her testimony that the abuse ended after that interaction.
It was Nancy's testimony that a time came when she told her mother about the abuse. She testified that she told her mother because her mother had found out that Nancy was cutting herself on her wrist with a knife and her mother was "scared that [Nancy] would do something to [her] sisters because she didn't understand what was happening." Nancy added that she engaged in cutting behavior because she hoped that it would "distract" her mind from thinking about the abuse that she had suffered. She further testified that she told her mother about the abuse because, if she was not "able to see" her sisters, she "didn't know if [she] could protect them" or "didn't know that maybe something like that [was] happening to them too * * *."
In the course of a lengthy and thorough cross-examination of Nancy, she was questioned about her sisters being in the room during some of the instances of abuse, and she maintained that that was the case. She was also cross-examined with respect to her disclosure of the abuse to her cousin and the reactions of her aunt and grandmother.
Immediately prior to the testimony of Adebimpe Adewusi, M.D., a doctor who treated Nancy, defense counsel moved to exclude any mention by said doctor of the fact that Nancy had suicidal thoughts stemming from her concern that she could not protect her sisters from suffering the same abuse as she allegedly had suffered. Counsel contended that such statements were not relevant to medical diagnosis and thus did not fall within that exception to the hearsay rule; he added that the statements constituted impermissible bolstering and vouching. In response, the prosecutor asked "that the Court allow the doctor to testify simply that [Nancy] showed concern for her sisters." The trial justice ruled that the statement that Nancy was concerned about her sisters was "reasonably pertinent to [Nancy's] past suicidal ideations." He also commented that Nancy's concern for her sisters would "not be new to the jury."
Subsequent to the trial justice's ruling, defense counsel raised an additional objection to the doctor's testimony. He contended that the doctor should not be permitted to testify with respect to what Nancy told the doctor about her disclosure of the abuse to her cousin, which information eventually was passed on to her aunt and was heard by her grandmother; nor, defense counsel further contended, should the doctor be permitted to testify with respect to what Nancy told her about the responses to that disclosure. Defense counsel argued that such statements did not fall within the exception to the hearsay rule concerning statements made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. He then posited that the doctor should also not be permitted to testify as to Nancy's statement that her sisters were in the room when some of the abuse allegedly occurred; he argued that that statement was "narrative * * *." The trial justice overruled defendant's objection and stated as follows:
Doctor Adewusi then testified that she worked at Hasbro Children's Hospital as a "child abuse pediatrics fellow," meaning that she specialized in the area of child abuse pediatrics. Having been qualified as an expert, Dr. Adewusi testified about the type of examination she usually conducts and how she conducted Nancy's physical examination. When the prosecutor started to question the doctor about her conversation with Nancy prior to beginning the physical examination, defendant incorporated by reference his previous objections to the doctor's testimony. The prosecutor then requested permission to proceed by posing leading questions to the doctor, and defense counsel stated that he had no objection.
The remainder of the doctor's testimony, which spans only three transcript pages, proceeded in pertinent part as follows:
No further objections were made, and defense counsel did not cross-examine the doctor.
Douglas Harris testified on defendant's behalf, identifying himself as defendant's brother-in-law. During the course of the state's cross-examination of Mr. Harris, he was asked if defendant was ever left alone with defendant's children, and Mr. Harris replied that defendant was not. The prosecutor then asked whether, prior to an earlier hearing in the case, Mr. Harris had given a statement to defense counsel. At that point, defense counsel objected and a sidebar conference ensued.
Defense counsel contended that, if the state was trying to impeach Mr. Harris with a summary of his potential testimony which had been prepared by defense counsel and provided to the prosecutor during discovery pursuant to Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure (), it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial