State v. Juan P. Benitez, 266 A.3d 1221

Background

Defendant Juan P. Benitez was charged with one count of second-degree child molestation for sexual contact with his daughter (complaining witness, pseudonymously "Nancy") beginning when she was about six; trial occurred in March 2017.
Nancy testified at trial about repeated anal molestation, disclosure to a paternal cousin (who told the aunt/grandmother), that her sisters were sometimes in the room, self-harm (cutting), and that the abuse stopped after she resisted; she was cross-examined at length on these points.
Nancy was examined by Dr. Adebimpe Adewusi, a child-abuse pediatrics fellow, who observed cutting marks and, on leading questioning, related statements Nancy made about fear for her sisters, prior disclosure to family, the grandmothers minimizing response, and that sisters were sometimes present.
Defense objected before and during the doctors testimony, arguing the statements were hearsay not for medical diagnosis/treatment and amounted to impermissible bolstering; the trial justice admitted the testimony as reasonably pertinent to psychological diagnosis/treatment.
On cross-examination of defense witness Douglas Harris, the prosecutor used a defense-prepared statement (which Harris did not author or sign) to refresh his recollection; defense objected to potential impeachment but did not maintain a contemporaneous objection when the document was used.
Defendant was convicted, moved for new trial (denied), sentenced, and appealed arguing (1) improper hearsay/bolstering via the doctor and (2) improper impeachment with a statement Harris did not author; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Benitez)	Held
Whether Dr. Adewusi could testify to statements Nancy made about her fear for sisters, prior family disclosure, grandmothers minimizing reaction, and that sisters were present	Statements were admissible under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception because they were reasonably pertinent to diagnosing/treating Nancys psychological and physical injuries	Testimony constituted hearsay unrelated to diagnosis/treatment and impermissible bolstering/vouching for the complaining witness	Admitted: Court held the statements were reasonably pertinent to psychological diagnosis/treatment (medical exception) and, in any event, cumulative/harmless; no improper bolstering found
Whether the State could use a defense-prepared, unsigned statement to impeach/refresh the recollection of Douglas Harris	Use was proper to refresh recollection; the statement was used to refresh, not to impeach, and defense did not preserve a contemporaneous objection	Use to impeach with a document Harris did not author, sign, or review was improper and misleading to the jury	Waived: Court found the specific objection was not preserved; in any event the document was properly used to refresh recollection under Rule 612 and not as improper impeachment

Key Cases Cited

State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172 (R.I. 2014) (explains medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception and admits statements concerning psychological as well as physical symptoms)
State v. Gaspar, 982 A.2d 140 (R.I. 2009) (distinguishes causation/assigning fault from statements pertinent to diagnosis)
State v. Pina, 455 A.2d 313 (R.I. 1983) (articulates rationale for medical-treatment hearsay exception)
Vallinoto v. DiSandro, 688 A.2d 830 (R.I. 1997) (statements about sexual activity admissible where relevant to psychological diagnosis/treatment)
State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2004) (defines cumulative evidence and standard for harmlessness)
State v. Robinson, 989 A.2d 965 (R.I. 2010) (hearsay not prejudicial when cumulative and defendant's guilt established by proper evidence)
State v. Souza, 708 A.2d 899 (R.I. 1998) (permitting use of writings to refresh a witness's recollection without the document having been authored by the witness)
State v. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2020) (reinforces raise-or-waive rule for appellate review of evidentiary objections)