United States v. Iraephraim Underwood
859 F.3d 386
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Iraephraim Underwood was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and interstate transportation with intent to engage in unlawful sexual activity relating to his step-granddaughter (Jane); acquitted as to a separate victim (John).
- Allegations arose from a 2014 trip in Underwood’s semi-truck; Jane reported sexual assaults to her mother, underwent a medical exam, and was interviewed at a Children’s Advocacy Center.
- At trial the government called: (1) Underwood’s wife (Cora) to testify about marital observations, texts, and voicemails; (2) Underwood’s adult daughter to testify about a 1992 sexual-abuse incident for which Underwood pleaded guilty; and (3) Nurse Gorsuch, the sexual-assault examiner, to relate statements Jane made during the medical interview.
- Trial objections: Underwood argued Cora’s testimony violated the confidential marital communications privilege and the adverse-spousal testimonial privilege; he challenged the daughter’s testimony under FRE 403 (despite Rule 414) and challenged Nurse Gorsuch’s statements as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 803(4).
- The district court admitted all three witnesses’ testimony; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding (1) a child-abuse exception to the marital communications privilege applied to permit Cora’s testimony, (2) the daughter’s prior-act testimony was properly admitted under Rule 414, and (3) Nurse Gorsuch’s interview statements were admissible under the medical-diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule (or not plainly erroneous).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Underwood) | Defendant's Argument (Gov’t) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of wife’s testimony — marital privileges | Cora’s testimony violated confidential marital-communications and adverse-spouse privileges | Child-abuse exception permits spousal communications about abuse of a child/stepchild; witness-spouse controls testimonial privilege | Court affirmed: applied a child-abuse exception to marital communications; defendant lacks standing to contest wife’s testimonial waiver |
| Scope of child-abuse exception | Exception should not extend to granddaughter/outsider or to truck (not home) | Crime against a child in a caregiver role disrupts marital trust; truck is functional equivalent of home; exception may extend case-by-case | Court adopted a narrow, case-specific child-abuse exception and found facts here support admission |
| Admitting daughter’s 20+-year-old prior-act testimony (Rule 414 / Rule 403) | Prejudice outweighs probative value; temporal remoteness and different issue (intent to cross state line) | Rule 414 permits admission of other child-molestation evidence without time limit; strong similarity increases probative value | Court affirmed: Rule 414 allows remote prior child-molestation evidence; similarities made it highly probative and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Nurse’s testimony recounting victim’s statements (FRE 803(4)) | Much of the interview was not for medical diagnosis and thus hearsay; identification of perpetrator and nonmedical details were irrelevant | Interview was primarily for medical evaluation; statements informed exam, testing, and safety; admission not plain error | Court found no plain error: statements were reasonably related to medical diagnosis/treatment and admissible under FRE 803(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (Sup. Ct.) (establishing testimonial spousal privilege framework and that witness-spouse controls testimonial privilege)
- United States v. Breton, 740 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (articulating rationale for a child-abuse exception to the marital communications privilege)
- United States v. Bahe, 128 F.3d 1440 (10th Cir. 1997) (extending child-abuse exception to abuse of visitors/relatives in the home)
- United States v. Porter, 986 F.2d 1014 (6th Cir. 1993) (discussing marital-communications privilege contours)
- United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239 (6th Cir. 1985) (describing the two marital privileges)
- United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (permitting admission of a 20-year-old uncharged child-molestation act under Rule 414)
- United States v. Kappell, 418 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2005) (medical-diagnosis hearsay exception analysis for sexual-assault examiner statements)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.) (en banc) (plain-error standard for unpreserved evidentiary objections)
- United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (6th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review requires exceptional circumstances)