State v. Moten
| Decision Date | 17 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008–51–C.A.,2008–51–C.A. |
| Parties | STATE v. Jeffrey MOTEN. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jane M. McSoley, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Lara E. Montecalvo, Office of the Public Defender, for Defendant.
Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.
On December 5, 2006, a Providence County Family Court jury found the defendant, Jeffrey Moten, guilty of first degree child abuse for inflicting serious bodily injury on his infant daughter, Nashya Moten. On May 10, 2007, the trial justice sentenced the defendant to twenty years, with eighteen years to serve and two years suspended with probation, along with one hundred hours of community service.
On appeal, defendant contends that his right to confrontation under both the United States and Rhode Island constitutions was violated when the trial justice allowed a pediatrician to testify regarding out-of-court statements made by a colleague of hers-an ophthalmologist who performed a retinal exam on the injured infant. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
The state charged defendant with one felony count pursuant to G.L.1956 § 11–9–5.3(b)(1) in connection with injuries suffered by Nashya on November 23, 2005.1 The just-cited statute provides that a person is guilty of first degree child abuse “[w]henever a person having care of a child * * * knowingly or intentionally * * * [i]nflicts upon [that] child serious bodily injury.” Id. The statute then defines “serious bodily injury” as being, inter alia, “physical injury that * * * [e]vidences subdural hematoma, intercranial hemorrhage and/or retinal hemorrhages as signs of ‘shaken baby syndrome’ and/or ‘abusive head trauma.’ ” Section 11–9–5.3(c)(4).
The defendant's jury trial began on November 30, 2006 in the Family Court. 2 The prosecution called four witnesses during its case-in-chief: (1) Amie Costa (Nashya's mother); (2) Detective Arthur Lee (the investigating officer from the Youth Services Bureau of the Providence Police Department); (3) Dr. Nancy Harper (the pediatrician who treated Nashya's injuries); and (4) Detective Paul Renzi (an officer in the Providence Police Department who investigated Ms. Costa's apartment on the night of the incident). During his testimony, Det. Lee also read into evidence two statements given by defendant to the police during the investigation. The defendant stipulated that the statements, taken on November 24 and December 2, 2005, were “freely and voluntarily taken and given by the Defendant and executed at the Providence Police Station.” Finally, the prosecution read into evidence a stipulated statement from Christopher Hereth—a friend of defendant who stated that he had visited defendant on the afternoon of the incident.
As the trial justice noted in the course of denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial involved “very little disputed testimony”; he added that the testimony “which may [have been] characterized as [disputed 3 was], frankly, somewhat minor.” Since defendant's sole contentionon appeal deals with a narrow issue regarding a portion of Dr. Harper's testimony, we shall provide the reader with an abbreviated rendition of the testimony as relayed by the witnesses and stipulated statements.
Nashya Moten was born on June 30, 2005 to Ms. Costa and defendant. The events that led to the criminal charge in this case occurred on November 23 of that same year. On that day, Nashya was just shy of being five months old. At the time, defendant, Ms. Costa, Nashya, and three dogs lived in a rented apartment in Providence. On the morning of November 23, Ms. Costa left Nashya at the apartment in defendant's care when she departed for work. Ms. Costa testified that, before she left the apartment, Nashya was “just cooing noises, looking at [her], smiling at [her]”; that Nashya's “eyes were fine”; and that Nashya was responsive to sounds.
Ms. Costa returned from work between 3:30 and 3:45 that afternoon. When she arrived at the apartment, she heard Nashya making what she described at trial as a “weird scream/cry.” She picked up her daughter and “noticed that [Nashya's] eyes were stuck in the [upper right] corner of her head not moving, not following any verbal sounds.” Nashya also did not respond to visual prompts. Ms. Costa further testified that her daughter was “just kind of lifeless.” She stated that Nashya “didn't really say anything or do anything.” Ms. Costa added that Nashya “just was doing that weird scream/cry.” The mother proceeded to call Nashya's pediatrician, who recommended that she take Nashya to the hospital immediately. Ms. Costa then drove her daughter to Hasbro Children's Hospital.
In a statement given to the police at 12:40 a.m. on November 24, defendant confirmed that he was babysitting Nashya when Ms. Costa left for work the previous morning. He stated that he and Nashya eventually took a nap together after Ms. Costa left. He added that, after sleeping for about two hours, he woke up with a stomachache and had to use the bathroom. He stated that, while he was in the bathroom, he “heard the dogs moving around,” and that he “told them to go lay down.” He added that he then “heard [his] daughter fall down out of bed, and she screamed like [he had] never heard her scream before.” The defendant told the police that he “ran to her” and “picked her up right away” in order to check on her condition; he said that Nashya did not have any bruises or marks, nor was she bleeding. He stated that he then “beat the dogs because [he] thought they knocked [Nashya] off of the bed.” According to defendant's statement, this all happened “20 minutes before [Ms. Costa] came home.” At trial, Ms. Costa also testified that, when she came home from work, defendant “told [her] that the dogs did it.”
Doctor Nancy Harper testified at trial as both a fact witness and as an expert witness in the field of child pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics.4
Doctor Harper stated that she was a board-certified pediatrician and a fellow in the Child Protection Program at Rhode Island Hospital. Doctor Harper was on call on November 23, 2005. That night, she received a call from a resident in the emergency room who told her that she was “very worried” about an infant at the hospital (Nashya) whose “eyes were straight upwards and not moving.” The resident also stated that Nashya was “lethargic” and seemed to be suffering from “seizures and a headache.” Doctor Harper then went to the hospital, arriving at the emergency room at approximately 6 p.m.
When Dr. Harper arrived, she discussed Nashya's condition with an emergency room resident. She then reviewed Nashya's CAT scan, consulted with a pediatric radiologist, examined the baby, and spoke with Ms. Costa. Doctor Harper became “quite concerned” when she reviewed the images from Nashya's CAT scan, which showed “too much fluid around the brain, which is concerning for subdural hemorrhages.” Additionally, Dr. Harper testified that there appeared to be “new blood” around the brain.
When interviewing Ms. Costa, Dr. Harper became concerned after Ms. Costa reported that “the baby wasn't acting normally and not following with the eyes” when Ms. Costa came home from work. Doctor Harper stated that Nashya “showed signs of injury to her brain” and that these injuries were “potentially life threatening” and “were just not consistent with an accidental injury.” Doctor Harper testified that, because she was a mandatory reporter of child abuse and neglect,5 she contacted the Department of Children, Youth and Families that evening to report the incident.
Doctor Harper indicated that, in the course of her treatment, she spoke “with physicians * * * to recommend other tests that need[ed] to be done.” One of the physicians contacted by Dr. Harper was an “ophthalmology doctor on call,” whom she asked “to come and examine [Nashya's] eyes for [Dr. Harper].” Doctor Harper testified that she could not recall the ophthalmologist's name, but knew that he was “a resident on duty.” The ophthalmologist arrived at “9 or 10 p.m.” and performed a “dilated eye exam.” Doctor Harper explained:
At this point during Dr. Harper's testimony, defense counsel interrupted her answer by saying “Objection”—a challenge that the trial justice immediately sustained without any discussion. The prosecutor then continued questioning Dr. Harper as follows:
Doctor Harper then testified that the ophthalmologist told her “that Nashya had extensive retinal hemorrhages that covered the entire back of the eye.” The ophthalmologist also told Dr. Harper that Nashya had “a large hemorrhage which was obscuring or covering the macular in her right eye,” which is “the area where you get your best vision.”
Doctor Harper testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hudgen
..."it may be possible that defense counsel had the Confrontation Clause in mind, [but she] made no reference to the same." State v. Moten , 64 A.3d 1232, 1240 (R.I. 2013). Indeed, defendant in the case at bar raised no basis for the admission—constitutional or otherwise—and wholly failed to p......
-
State v. Whitaker
...argument must fail in accordance with our well-settled waiver rule. See State v. Price, 66 A.3d 406, 416 (R.I.2013); State v. Moten, 64 A.3d 1232, 1238–39 (R.I.2013); State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I.2011). As we said in Karngar, 29 A.3d at 1235, there is a difference between a mo......
-
State v. Fry
...issues to be presented to a trial justice "in such a posture as to alert the trial justice to the question being raised." State v. Moten, 64 A.3d 1232, 1238 (R.I.2013) (quoting DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Co., 26 A.3d 585, 628 n. 55 (R.I.2011) and Figuereo, 31 A.3d at 1289 ). For this re......
-
State v. Sanchez
...must be set forth with sufficient particularity to call the trial justice's attention to the basis of the objection." State v. Moten , 64 A.3d 1232, 1238 (R.I. 2013) (emphasis in original) (quoting Union Station Associates v. Rossi , 862 A.2d 185, 192 (R.I. 2004) ).The defendant does not di......