State v. Crews
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 959
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- After hip surgery, Trudy Crews was visited by her Medicaid case manager who observed a black eye, bruises, and learned Trudy said Jimmy Crews pushed her and she wanted a divorce.
- The case manager and a colleague later took Trudy to the police; Jimmy Crews was charged with second-degree domestic assault.
- At bench trial Trudy did not appear; the prosecutor called the Medicaid case manager to testify about Trudy’s out-of-court statements identifying Crews as the perpetrator.
- Crews objected that the testimony was hearsay and not covered by any exception; the trial court admitted the testimony over objection. Crews introduced a letter purportedly from Trudy recanting. No other evidence tied Crews to the injuries.
- The trial judge credited the case manager’s testimony, found Crews guilty, and sentenced him (suspended execution). Crews appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Crews' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statements by victim to Medicaid case manager | Statements were inadmissible hearsay and not subject to exception | Statements fit the physician/healthcare-provider hearsay exception | Reversed: statements were inadmissible hearsay |
| Applicability of physician hearsay exception | Case manager not a physician/nurse; statements not for diagnosis/treatment | Exception (termed healthcare provider) applies | Exception is narrow; does not apply to non‑medical case manager or identity statements |
| Prejudice from admission of hearsay in bench trial | Admission was prejudicial; judge relied on hearsay over recantation | In bench trial, judge presumed not prejudiced absent clear reliance | Reversal: record shows judge relied on the hearsay and found it more credible than recantation, causing prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc) (trial court discretion on evidence admission)
- State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc) (limits on disturbing evidentiary discretion)
- State v. Steele, 314 S.W.3d 845 (Mo. App.) (identity statements not admissible under physician exception)
- Doe v. McFarlane, 207 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. App.) (definition of hearsay and need for exceptions)
- Breeding v. Dodson Trailer Repair, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. banc) (physician‑treatment hearsay exception requires pertinence to diagnosis/treatment)
- State v. Gonzales, 652 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. App.) (extension of exception to nurse statements for doctor’s use)
- State v. Anders, 975 S.W.2d 462 (Mo. App.) (presumption that judge in bench trial is not influenced by inadmissible evidence unless record shows otherwise)