State v. Matulis, No. 18-1053
| Decision Date | 23 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-1053 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Steven R. Matulis, Defendant Below, Petitioner |
Petitioner Steven R. Matulis, by counsel Isaac R. Forman and P. Gregory Haddad, appeals his conviction on one count of sexual abuse in the first degree. Respondent State of West Virginia, by counsel Zachary Aaron Viglianco, filed a response. Petitioner filed a reply.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Petitioner is a gastroenterologist who practiced in Charleston, West Virginia for more than thirty years. From August of 2015 through February of 2016, petitioner performed colonoscopies and sigmoidoscopies on various female patients at Charleston Area Medical Center ("CAMC"). Thereafter, CAMC staff accused Dr. Matulis of inappropriately touching certain patients during gastroenterological procedures. Specifically, staff said they saw, among other things, Dr. Matulis inserting his finger into P.W.'s and T.W.'s vaginas and touching T.W.'s breast.1 Both P.W. and T.W. were sedated at the time. With regard to petitioner's touching of T.W.'s breast, the evidence later indicated that, during T.W.'s sigmoidoscopy, a comment was made about T.W. being potentially unable to breast feed her infant due to her recent unexplained weight loss. Petitioner responded, "Here, let me check." Petitioner then slid his hand under the sheet covering T.W. and palpated T.W.'s breast. Petitioner was questioned by CAMC's administrators about the touching. Petitioner acknowledged that he conducted brief vaginal examinations on P.W. and T.W. andexamined T.W.'s breast. Petitioner averred that each of these examinations was done for a medical purpose.
In 2018, Dr. Matulis was indicted on five counts of second-degree sexual assault and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse. All of the charges related to gastroenterological procedures performed by petitioner at CAMC. Prior to the trial in this matter, the circuit court dismissed Count Six, alleging sexual assault in the second degree, and Count Seven, alleging sexual abuse in the first degree, on the ground that no victim was named in either count. Petitioner also moved to present at trial the expert testimony of Dr. Yadira Baez-Lockard, a psychologist, whose proposed testimony/opinion would regard (1) the "criteria for abnormal and criminal sexual behavior," and (2) that petitioner "does not meet those criteria as defined in medical research and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition." Petitioner argued that Dr. Lockard's opinion would help the jury determine if petitioner's touching of P.W. and T.W. was done for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. The circuit court commented on petitioner's motion, but did not rule upon it.
Petitioner's five-day trial began on October 1, 2018. That same day, the circuit court found that Dr. Yadira Baez-Lockard's testimony was inadmissible because it invaded the province of the jury, i.e., that based on the evidence at trial, the jury could determine whether petitioner touched the victims for the purpose of sexual gratification.
During the State's case-in-chief, it called Dr. Daniel Shats, a board certified gastroenterologist. Dr. Shats testified that a "digital vaginal exam" where "the fingers are used to examine the vagina" is not a standard procedure during the "usual procedures done by gastroenterologists" because "a gastroenterologist is a specialist in the digestive system" and a digital vaginal exam is "an examination of an entirely different bodily system, one which gastroenterologists typically don't receive any extensive training in." The State then asked Dr. Shats, "Generally are vaginal exams medically necessary in the scope of the practice of gastroenterology?" Dr. Shats replied, "Medically necessary, no, because there's always the option of referring the patient to a specialist in the female reproductive system, a gynecologist." However, Dr. Shats also testified that, while it was "not outside the realm of possibility" that a gastroenterologist might need to perform a digital vaginal exam, such examinations were not usually performed during a colonoscopy because "it's important that the patient participates in the examination" and, therefore, that procedure is "generally . . . performed on an awake patient." Dr. Shats also said that "if for some reason it [becomes] necessary to examine the vaginal area during a colonoscopy, I would mention that after to the patient." Dr. Shats also testified that a breast examination is not within the regular procedures of a gastroenterologist and that it would not be within the purview of a gastroenterologist to check the breast tissue of a breastfeeding patient. Finally, Dr. Shats opined that petitioner's touching of P.W.'s and T.W.'s vaginas and T.W.'s breast "was not medically necessary[,]" but if such examinations were conducted, petitioner should have documented them in the patients' medical records.
The State also called Dr. Larry Griffin, a board certified obstetrician-gynecologist ("OB-GYN"). Dr. Griffin testified that having reviewed P.W.'s and T.W.'s patient records, he could discern no medical reason for petitioner to conduct a digital vaginal examination of either woman. He further opined that petitioner's touching of T.W.'s breast was "not at all" medically warranted and that a colonoscopy was "certainly . . . not an appropriate setting for a breast examination."
Patient P.W. testified that petitioner did not inform her following her gastroenterological procedure that he touched her vagina or that she needed a vaginal examination. Likewise, T.W. testified that petitioner did not inform her following her gastroenterological procedure that he touched her vagina and her breast, or that she needed a vaginal or breast examination.
At the close of the State's case-in-chief, petitioner's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the five remaining counts. The circuit court granted petitioner's motion with regard to Counts II and III of petitioner's indictment. Therefore, the three counts remaining for the jury were Count I (sexual assault in the second degree: sexual intrusion of P.W.'s vagina), Count IV (sexual assault in the second degree: sexual intrusion T.W.'s vagina), and Count V (sexual abuse in the first degree for touching of T.W.'s breast).
Petitioner did not testify during his case-in-chief; however, he did call a board certified gastroenterologist, Dr. Donald Seibert, who explained that digital vaginal examinations may be appropriate during a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, and that he trained his medical fellows, including petitioner, to utilize that technique when necessary. Dr. Seibert then opined that petitioner's behavior with regard to the vaginal examinations was medically warranted and appropriate. However, with regard to petitioner's touching of T.W.'s breast, Dr. Seibert said, "I think [petitioner] wanted to help[;]he's trying to help the patient, but that doesn't help the patient."
On closing, petitioner's counsel said,
During their deliberations, the jury sent a note to the circuit court seeking a definition of "sexual gratification." The court answered that question. Thereafter, the jury sent out another note indicating they were able to rule on only one of the three remaining counts. In response, the circuit court gave the jury an Allen charge pursuant to Allen v. U.S., 164 U.S. 492 (1896). Thereafter, the jury found petitioner guilty of Count V, sexual abuse in the first degree, regarding his touching of T.W.'s breast. The jury acquitted him of Count I (sexual assault in the second degree: sexual intrusion of P.W.'s vagina) and Count IV (sexual assault in the second degree: sexual intrusion of T.W.'s vagina).
Post-trial, petitioner filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial. By order entered November 8, 2018, the circuit court denied petitioner's motions and sentenced petitioner to not less than one nor more than five years in prison, and assessed a $10,000 fine. The circuit court also ordered that petitioner register as a sex offender and be placed on supervised release for five years following his release from prison. Petitioner now appeals.
Syl. pt. 3, State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000).
State v. Sites, 241 W.Va. 430, 437, 825 S.E.2d 758, 765 (2019).
Petitioner asserts three assignments of error on appeal. Petitioner first argues that the circuit court's decision to prohibit Dr. Baez-Lockard's expert testimony was erroneous where that evidence was relevant in determining whether petitioner's touching of T.W.'s breast was done for the purpose of his own sexual gratification. Petitioner argues that Dr. Baez-Lockard's proposed testimony would have regarded (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial