State v. BullockState v. Bullock
Lead Opinion
Dеfendant was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual offense. The trial court consolidated thе cases for judgment and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Defendant’s older son testified that, when he was between seven and nine years old, defendant had sexually assaulted him by performing fellatio on him and making him perform fellatio on defendant. The older son and a younger son testified that defendant had also sexually assaulted the younger son in the same manner when that child was four.
After the older son told his stepmother that defendant had been mоlesting him, defendant took him to a psychiatrist. The Durham County Department of Social Services (DSS) began an investigation of defendant for sexual abuse and arranged for the older son to be evaluated by Dr. Charles Schaffer, a pediatrician and child
DSS requested that Dr. Schaffer also evaluate the younger son. Dr. Schaffer testified that during the evaluation this boy indicаted with anatomical dolls that defendant had placed his penis in the boy’s mouth while holding and patting his head. Dr. Schаffer diagnosed child sexual abuse and recommended psychological treatment. DSS referred the younger son to Dr. Carolyn Schroeder, a child psychologist, to determine his psychological status and treatment nеeds. Dr. Schroeder testified that on one of the boy’s visits to her he indicated with anatomical dolls that defendаnt had placed his penis in the boy’s mouth.
Defendant contends that the testimony of Dr. Schaffer and Dr. Schroeder should not have been admitted as substantive evidence. The testimony of both as to the children’s statements was heаrsay because the statements were made by one other than the declarant at trial and were offеred to prove the truth of the matter asserted, ie„ that defendant had sexually assaulted his sons.
[statements made for рurposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external sоurce thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
The statements and non-verbаl conduct in question were clearly made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. Both сhildren talked about the abuse and demonstrated what had happened, using anatomical dolls, as part оf the diagnosis and treatment process. The statements and demonstrations were, equally clearly, pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment. In the context of child sexual abuse or child rape, a victim’s statemеnts to a physician as to an assailant’s identity are pertinent to diagnosis and treatment. State v. Aguallo,
Defendant argues that Dr. Schaffеr’s testimony was not admissible because he had received little, if any, academic training concerning abusеd children. The record establishes, however, that Dr. Schaffer had extensive experience and training in the area of child sexual abuse. He had been a pediatrician for twenty-six years and had regularly seen around 150 children per week. He had both taught and attended seminars on child sexual abuse. He was on the Advisory Board оf the Child Medical Examiner’s Program, a state and federally funded program established to evaluate whether children have been abused. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the trial court properly qualified Dr. Schаffer as an expert in pediatrics and the diagnosis of child sexual abuse. See State v. Baker,
Defendant further contends that Dr. Schroeder’s testimony was not admissible under Rule 803(4) because she is a psychologist, not a medical doctor. We recently noted that statements made by a victim of child sexual abuse to a psychologist during the course of diagnosis and treatment are admissible under Rule 803(4). State v. Bright,
Finally, defendant contends that the trial judge erroneously failed to summarize the evidence or explain the application of the law to the evidence. This argument is without mеrit. A trial judge “shall not be required to state, summarize or recapitulate the evidence, or to explain the application of the law to the evidence.”
For the reasons set forth, we find that the defendant reсeived a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
No error.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
Were the Court deciding for the first time the issue of the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. Schaffer and Dr. Schroeder, I would hold this testimony admissible only for corroborative purposes for the reasons stated by then Chief Justice Billings, dissenting, in State v. Aguallo,