State v. Jeffrey Moten
64 A.3d 1232
R.I.2013Background
- Moten was convicted in Providence County Family Court of first-degree child abuse for injuries to Nashya Moten on November 23, 2005; jury verdict on December 5, 2006; sentence on May 10, 2007: 20 years with 18 to serve and 2 suspended with probation plus 100 hours community service.
- Prosecution proved injuries included retinal hemorrhages; statute defines serious bodily injury to include retinal hemorrhages as evidence of abusive head trauma.
- Dr. Nancy Harper, a pediatrician, treated Nashya and testified as fact and expert witness; she consulted an ophthalmologist who performed a retinal exam.
- Ophthalmologist’s statements to Dr. Harper about Nashya’s retinal hemorrhages were admitted through Harper’s testimony; defense objected as a potential Confrontation Clause issue.
- The defense argued Crawford-based confrontation claims; the court and parties discussed hearsay objections; the issue centers on whether the ophthalmologist’s statements were testimonial and thus subject to cross-examination; the appellate court ultimately affirms the conviction.
- Statutory framework includes mandatory reporting by physicians to DCYF; retinal hemorrhages are defined as a form of serious bodily injury under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause about ophthalmologist’s statements | Moten argues statements were testimonial under Crawford | State argues statements non-testimonial or not properly preserved | Issue not preserved; if reached, statements are non-testimonial; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes core testimonial statements and cross-examination requirement)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (primary purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic affidavit as testimonial evidence; application of Crawford)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate testimony as testimonial; requirement to confront analyst)
- State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631 (2006) ( Rhode Island confrontation/raising issues and preservation)