In re E.L.
2019 Ohio 1490
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile delinquency complaint charged 13-year-old E.L. with rape of six-year-old V.T.; allegations arose from V.T.’s statements at school and at a child advocacy center that she kissed E.L.’s genitals.
- Trial court conducted an in camera competency interview and found V.T. incompetent to testify; the court then held a hearing under Evid.R. 807 on admissibility of her out-of-court statements.
- At the Evid.R. 807 hearing the State also asked the court to admit the statements under Evid.R. 803(4) (medical diagnosis/treatment) and Evid.R. 803(2) (excited utterance).
- The trial court excluded V.T.’s statements under Evid.R. 807, 803(4), and 803(2), citing concerns about the child’s reliability, interview protocol deviations, the interviewer’s limited experience, lack of medical/social-worker involvement, and absence of independent proof of the act.
- The State appealed the trial court’s exclusion; the Ninth District affirmed, rejecting the State’s arguments that the court conflated standards and erred in applying Evid.R. 803(4) and 803(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in excluding V.T.’s statements under Evid.R. 807 | State: court properly held an Evid.R. 807 hearing; statements met exceptions (not challenged on appeal) | Juvenile court: statements lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, no independent proof, testimony not obtainable | Court did not address substantive 807 error (State did not challenge it on appeal) |
| Whether court improperly reached/adjudicated admissibility under Evid.R. 803(4) and Evid.R. 803(2) when only Evid.R. 807 hearing was requested | State: court exceeded scope and conflated standards by considering trustworthiness under 803(4)/803(2) | Juvenile court: State expressly requested admission under 803(4)/803(2) at hearing | Court: invited error doctrine bars State’s challenge because State actively asked court to rule on 803(4)/803(2) |
| Whether trial court conflated standards (improperly applied 807 factors to 803(4)/803(2)) | State: court applied trustworthiness inquiry inappropriate for 803(4)/803(2) | Court: findings demonstrate distinct analysis for each exception despite single discussion | Court: record shows it applied appropriate factors to each exception; no conflation reversible error |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by excluding statements under Evid.R. 803(4) | State: many courts admit forensic/social-worker interviews under 803(4); statements were elicited for diagnosis/treatment | Court: interviewer inexperienced, deviated from protocol, no evidence medical/social-worker actually treated or used statements for treatment, child inconsistent and behavioral issues | Court: no abuse of discretion; State failed to prove primary purpose was medical diagnosis/treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (2007) (sets factors for determining primary purpose for medical-treatment hearsay exception)
- State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (2010) (distinguishing primary purpose test between treatment and forensic investigation)
- State v. Huertas, 51 Ohio St.3d 22 (1990) (excited utterance requirements and rationale)
- State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 87 (1988) (trustworthiness via lack of opportunity to fabricate supports excited utterance)
- State v. Storch, 66 Ohio St.3d 280 (1993) (Evid.R. 807 contemplates pretrial hearing for child sexual-abuse statements)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate review cannot substitute its judgment for trial court's when reviewing discretionary decisions)