State v. Sheridan
| Citation | 252 A.3d 1236 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2018-234-C.A., P1/16-1542A,2018-234-C.A. |
| Parties | STATE v. Matthew SHERIDAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Mariana E. Ormonde, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Lauren E. Jones, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
The defendant, Matthew Sheridan, appeals following the entry of a November 21, 2017 judgment of conviction and commitment reflecting the fact that a jury found him guilty of one count of first-degree sexual assault. On appeal, he contends that the trial justice abused his discretion: (1) "when he overruled [Mr.] Sheridan's objection to Dr. [Amy] Goldberg's testimony * * * [because] [t]he state's disclosure was too late and was wholly insufficient, [Mr.] Sheridan was prejudiced, and the trial justice's remedy did not ameliorate the prejudice;" (2) "when he admitted Dr. Goldberg's testimony because it invaded the province of the jury;" and (3) "when he permitted the prosecution to refer to the complainant as ‘the victim,’ which prejudiced the jury prior to trial[.]"
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
On May 11, 2016, Mr. Sheridan was charged by indictment with one count of first-degree sexual assault, alleging that he had "engage[d] in sexual penetration, to wit, mouth to penis, with [Jasper1 ], by force or coercion, in violation of § 11-37-2 of the General Laws of Rhode Island * * *."2 The record reflects that Jasper was fifteen at the time of the assault at issue. It is also important to note at the outset that Mr. Sheridan's defense was premised on the contention that what transpired between Jasper and him was consensual. Additionally, the crux of the issue on appeal is the admissibility of testimony by Amy Goldberg, M.D., to the effect that it was her opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that it is possible for an adolescent male to become erect and to ejaculate in response to an unwanted touching or sexual assault.
A trial ultimately ensued over five days in June of 2017. We relate below, in chronological order, the salient aspects of what transpired at trial.
The jury selection in this case began on June 12, 2017. During the course of voir dire , the state referred to Jasper as the "victim * * *." Defense counsel then moved during a sidebar to have the word "complainant" or "complaining witness" used instead of "victim." The trial justice stated as follows:
Thereafter, during voir dire , the prosecutor referred to Jasper as the "victim" on three occasions. There were no objections to any of those three uses of the word "victim" with respect to Jasper by the prosecutor. At the close of voir dire , defense counsel represented that the jury was satisfactory to Mr. Sheridan, without any further comment.
On June 12, 2017, defense counsel filed a written objection to the admission of Dr. Goldberg's testimony on the grounds that it was "[l]ate and [i]ncomplete [d]iscovery;" "[i]mproper [e]xpert [t]estimony;" and "[b]olstering * * *." Specifically, he contended that notice of Dr. Goldberg's testimony was presented to the defense only on Friday, June 9, 2017, two days prior to the start of trial, which did not provide the defense with "enough time properly to counter it." He further stated that the testimony invaded the "province of the jury to determine whether or not [Jasper's] responses to these forced sexual encounters actually constitutes evidence of consent." Mr. Sheridan added that the jurors were capable of making the necessary credibility determination as laypeople and did not need an expert opinion. Lastly, he averred that the testimony at issue would constitute bolstering "since the sole purpose is to justify [Jasper's] reaction to alleged acts of sexual assault by means of an expert medical opinion." He then requested "a Daubert hearing"3 prior to trial and a continuance if the testimony was to be admitted.
Thereafter, a hearing on defendant's objection was held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, after the impaneling of the jury was completed. At that hearing, defense counsel stated as follows:
Defense counsel went on to clarify that he was "not arguing discovery violation;" but he added that he was "saying it is late." He stated that he was "scrambling to prepare voir dire examination, opening strategy, whole nine yards, and now I have to deal with this issue and I have asked this Court not to allow it given the lateness of this particular disclosure." He did acknowledge that the prosecutor had put him on oral notice that she would be "pursuing this" but that "[n]othing was definitive at the time * * *."
Defense counsel contended that Dr. Goldberg's testimony should not be permitted because it was an expert medical opinion, involving "complicated medical journal articles" that he would have to review; he added that he would have a "limited opportunity to consult with [his] own medical professionals * * *." He averred that it put the defense "at a significant disadvantage * * *." Defense counsel further posited that the testimony invaded the province of the jury and would "potentially" constitute bolstering.
In response, the prosecutor conceded that the disclosure was late, but she stated that she had contacted defense counsel two weeks prior and put him on notice that the state was "actively seeking" such testimony. She stated that "it was clear" in that earlier conversation with defense counsel that she "would be calling a doctor for that very purpose to show during a sexual assault [an] individual male can get an erection and ejaculate * * *." She added that, if defense counsel wanted "until Monday" to prepare for Dr. Goldberg's testimony, she would not object because it would not be an "unreasonable request * * *."
It was further the prosecutor's representation that Dr. Goldberg would not testify as to whether the specific alleged incident at issue in this case was consensual or not; however, the doctor would testify with respect to the male anatomy that males "can have and maintain erection in response to stimuli, touching, or other events which are not sexual in nature." She would be talking in "general terms" and would be "simply explaining the anatomy of the human body [in] that there are censors [sic ] in the penis that when touched regardless of whether it is wanted or unwanted touching an individual can become erect." In further explaining why she believed that Dr. Goldberg's testimony would be helpful to the jury, the prosecutor also pointed to the fact that there were five male members of the jury but none of the five had ever been a victim of sexual assault and thus "never subject to erection during sexual assault and I think that is difficult to grasp." She added that she did not think the "female jurors will understand * * *."
The trial justice, in assessing whether or not to admit Dr. Goldberg's testimony, noted that "exclusion is a drastic remedy" and the "Supreme Court doesn't like it * * *." The trial justice suggested that he limit Dr. Goldberg's testimony by not allowing her to "bolster[ ] her opinion with literature" but permit her only to testify based on her "training, her experience, her understanding of those anatomical issues * * *." Then he asked counsel the following: Defense counsel responded: "I don't, Judge." The trial justice then asked a second time if Thursday would be acceptable and defense counsel stated: "That is fine."
The trial justice then stated that it was his ruling that Dr. Goldberg was "not permitted to state the foundation for her opinion" but must rely only on her education, training, and experience. He also decided not to have Dr. Goldberg testify until Thursday, June 15, 2017. The trial justice deemed his decision to be a "fair balancing of the interest of both sides."
Defense counsel subsequently asked if Dr. Goldberg was going to give her opinion "that a male penis can respond to stimulation despite a coercive environment?" When the trial justice answered him in the affirmative, defense counsel stated that he did not "anticipate having follow-up questions." He added that he was "happy to do a stipulation and save the State some money in terms of paying Dr. Goldberg."
Thereafter, the trial testimony ensued.
Jasper testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vose
...* * * the jury is as capable of comprehending and understanding such facts and drawing correct conclusions from them as is the expert * * *." Id. (quoting Roscoe, 198 A.3d 124041). The statute under review defines an "[a]dult with severe impairments" as one with a disability "attributable t......