*1 Failing by responsible any 5. abide Charleston Po- should be held like other Department’s policies proce- own and individual. lice pertinent to: dures The record in patently this ease makes it Planning executing appre-
a. and their police job. clear that the I have difficult Thomas; suspect of hension Jerome no have doubts it. Sergent But the protection family just during b. The of has facing life vehicular as difficult a life task — pursuit; jury without their son. A could that conclude Sergent’s David hap- did not death have to Breaking pursuit e. off vehicular pen police had the defendant officers fol- public safety; and departments’ lowed own regulations, injured Rendering pedestri- d. aid to an the standards of conduct followed an. nationwide, police officers terminated 6. Their failurе to abide adhere pursuit. drug Two might violent dealers professional police conduct, standards of escaped day have that an innocent —but as those contained in the Internation- young man might still be alive. Police, Inc., al Association of Chiefs I respectfully therefore dissent. Policy Model on Vehicular Pursuits. majority this affidavit characterizes as point failing specific tortious conduct “wholly support negli- insufficient to
gence action.” majority opinion police states that
pursuits inherently dangerous, “are absent officers, any negligence, pursuing S.E.2d pursued suspects, drivers other automo- Virginia, STATE of West Plaintiff biles, pedestrians.” 209 W.Va. at Below, Appellee, agree at 319. I with proposi- S.E.2d wholeheartedly exactly tion it —and police pursuits reason are to be done Jeffrey PETTREY, Allan Defendant restraint, and, possible, if at all avoid- Below, Appellant. ed.1 28401. No. Sergeant Miller’s affidavit indicates that commonly Supreme accepted professional Appeals standards Court police Virginia. conduct pursuit by that the West mandated terminated, should defendants have been March 2001. Submitted pursuit and that the failure to terminate the Decided 2001. June was reckless. The record reflects that the police officers in the instant case had a sub- Concurring Opinion of Justice jective people realization that often die hot Starcher, July pursuits. suspects already The criminal had disregard by indiscriminately shown for life
shooting police officers the hotel lot; reasonably
parking it was foreseeable they would harm party an innocent third police pursuits
to slow the down. Police are
inherently dangerous if police —and expose public danger- to that choose high harm, they
ousness likelihood agency by they employed
and the whom are go police police governmental agencies 1. I even to hold would so far as and the pursuits inherently strictly dangerous are employed as a matter would then be any inherently dangerous activity, any resulting law. As with liable for harm.
453
I.
FACTS children, appellant D.R., has two who old, eight K.R., approximately years approximately years who is six old. The appellant was never married to the children’s mother, and record is not clear as to how long they together. lived Visitation between his began point mother, R.R., At some the children’s pregnant became fifteen-year-old to her boy- boyfriend friend. R.R. and her living in North Carolina the time. D.R. and K.R. moved to West to live with grandmother. their maternal Both children sexually accused father of abusing them. The authorities were notified and De- McGraw, Jr., Esq., Attorney Darrell V. *5 Bailey tective investigated Darrell the ease. General, Warfield, Esq., E. Deputy Dawn grand jury The returned a 12-count indict- General, Charleston, Attorney Virginia, West against appellant ment February on Attorney Appellee. for with charging him four counts of sexual Burks, Tracy Esq., County P. Pub- Mercer degree assault first in violation of Princeton, Corporation, lic Defender West 61-8B-3, § W.Va.Code four counts of incest Virginia, Attorney Appellant. for 61-8-12, § in violation of W.Va.Code and four parent counts of sexual abuse MAYNARD, Justice: § violation of W.Va.Code 61-8D-5. The in- appellant, Jeffrey Pettrey, Alan alleged that appellant engaged dictment by the Circuit convicted Court Mercer intercourse, sex, in sexual oral with D.R. on County, Virginia, West counts of three two K.R. occasions and on two occasions assault, degree first sexual counts of three September May between 1995 and 1998. incest, and counts three of sexual abuse a The incidents occurred while the children parent. sentencing appellant Ater visiting their with father at his mother’s penitentiary on each count with the sen- house. consecutively, tences to run sus- appellant’s trial was on held June pended for the sentences sexual assault and presented and 1999. The State the testi- appellant sexual abuse. The was ordered to Akers, mony Betsy kindergarten D.R.’s serve the for the sentences incest convictions teacher; Margaret Spangler, the children’s probation placed and then be for five grandmother; maternal Phyllis Hasty, and years with conditions that he receivе at Highlands children’s counselor Southern pedophilia counseling and/or Community ap- Mental Health Center. The eigh- and not associate with pellant in his own pre- testified defense and years age. appeal, appellant teen On testimony Hylton, sented Sandra his contends the circuit court committed revers- mother, Brams, psy- and Joli Dr. licensed by admitting ible error inadmissible chologist. testify. children did not evidence; by denying for a his motion com- victims; by petency evaluation of the child Ms. Akers that D.R. was in testified her recognizing play therapy scientifically kindergarten from as a class 1997 to October abuse; diagnosing change reliable method noticed a June She D.R.’s acquittal mid-April year. denying and his motion for not- behavior in of that He withstanding depressed verdict or a new trial. seemed sad or and wanted to be occasion, pulled find no and We error affirm. left alone. On one he down “acting possible sexual out behavior and “mooned” pants in the cafeteria his approximately seven- abuse.” She saw K.R. the inci- she discussed other students. When beginning when the child was D.R., teen times daddy that “well he told her dent with years old. D.R. three and one-half told “if him.” also his teacher did that to He 7,May report brought after to her daddy beat what said he would he didn’t do Hasty his Ms. saw school. behavior really hard[]” him During her approximately D.R. ten times. daddy his wien- “for to suck him lie down children, they engaged in sessions with the placing D.R. Akers observed er[.]” Ms. play therapy in or nondirective child-directed positions. When sexual stuffed animals toys to which small children use various act doing, he was he tоld D.R. what she asked feelings because unable to out “[e]ating each other her animals were fully verbalize them. required by law to out.” Because she abuse, Ms. Akers report incidents sexual “dad- Ms. that D.R. stated testified authori- reported these conversations during counseling ses- dy hurt his third me” ties. that testified further he elaborat- sion. She “daddy by saying held ed on the incident Spangler Ms. testified down, me, pants, pulled him down his sucked time D.R. started lived her from the pointed groins, and wouldn’t and he his he through beginning of first preschool episode place This took in D.R.’s up.” let me kindergarten year, During Ms. grade. his D.R. also paternal grandmother’s bedroom. change Spangler that she noticed testified daddy do with K.” [ ] stated “that he saw this began throwing tant- behavior. He D.R.’s daddy with also saw K. with his “[h]e lot, cry he rums and “would set legs[.]” disclosing hands her Aftеr between nasty[.]” returning Upon from dirty felt abuse, immediately D.R. walked over to during on one occasion a visit with her father hitting it, calling bag began bot it Spangler period, said K.R. time *6 daddy. cryin” began and when she went “screamin’ months, grandmother being in almost therapy When her After five bathroom. her, Hasty daddy said was hurt on she K.R. “red K.R. told Ms. that her her. went to check “daddy that that K.R. told Spangler Ms. also stated She testified her sore[.]” bath, my play and I gave played pee-pee a water and with had when she K.R. “the his, hurt, soap burn bottom.” She stated with that it and that she didn’t like would her enjoyed visiting that their in her mouth.... said it [S]he father the white stuff her, initially Prior they to live with but was and made a sour when came bad face.” statement, making Hasty visit talk to later D.R. did not want to or his Ms. observed Spangler playing incident in K.R. with dolls. K.R. one of father. Ms. relаted an called erection, pulled doll awoke with an the dolls “the mean and he would D.R. male against baby[.]” April, down and rubbed hurt her K.R. “had him his undershorts her; groin hurting baby in had hit then touched her the area. the and she him the he baby, baby This time incidents at in face bite ... occurred the the and then the reported. school head doll in [the of] were had male groin, pelvic region doll[.]” of the in the other Phyllis Hasty that children’s “[a] testified Hasty Ms. said that made note of these she give specifically trained to coun- counselor thought behaviors because she were child, seling my specific that I a area alarming but at time she did not view the with, play therapy.” primarily, work being diagnostic of Af- behaviors as abuse. Hasty prior stated that she treated K.R. August, reported in she ter disclosure However, working D.R. D.R. with disclosed Bailey. incident to Detective Darrell abuse first.1 Ms. incidents sexual mother, Hylton, appellant’s February Sandra tes- began treating K.R. appellant brought to tified that the lived with her when child was her because of August abuse 1. D.R. the incidents sexual abuse on until disclosed July nothing 1998 while K.R. said about the apartment. D.R. two-bedroom and K.R. each count incest and sexual abuse stay intermittently with on parent; suspended would her week- court then the sen- and at or ends times for week two when tences for sexual assault and sexual abuse. living in mother North Carolina. appellant ordered serve the sen- appellant loving stated that had a She tence for the incest convictions after which relationship his children and that both with placed probation he will years for five stay appellant continued to her with the conditions that he receive treatment allegations after were home abuse counseling pedophilia and not as- and/or appellant made. The testified that is the he age eigh- sociate with children of D.R. K.R. and that father he lives appellant appeals teen. from this order. with his mother. stated that the children He appeal, appellant On contends cir- stayed with him off on and since by allowing cuit court erred inadmissible alleged appel- dates the indictment. The trial; hearsay during by failing grant lant testified that was not in a he involved competency evaluation of the dispute with that R.R. and he never had them; question by recognizing play therapy problems with grand- the children’s maternal scientifically as a method of diagnos- reliable why mother. He could think of no reason abuse; ing by refusing grant up D.R. and K.R. make would these stories. judgment acquittal or a new trial based sexually abusing He denied his children. upon insufficiency of the evidence. The Brams, appellant’s Joli expert, Dr. is a State asserts the circuit committed psychologist. licensed Dr. Brams reviewed argues judgment no error and that the of the the children’s records but did agree. court should be affirmed. We D.R. At interview and K.R. she testified play therapy diagnos- that nondirective is not II. preconceived tic. She stated that notions preschool result and that interviewer bias DISCUSSION age susceptible children are most to inter- submits the circuit viewer bias. stated that She the behaviors Betsy by allowing court erred Akers and exhibited these children were not clear Phyllis Hаsty testify regarding indicators of but sexual abuse clear them made to the child victims.3 He indicators D.R. K.R. “not this is error contends because the children brought up right way.” She stated testify, did not the statements were not in suggested “all children lie” and that D.R. and *7 herently trustworthy, nor did the statements might explain K.R.’s environment ex- them Therefore, hearsay exception. fall within plicit knowledge of sexual matters. Howev- says appellant, the the admission of these er, any family she admitted had not she met violates his statements federal constitutional members. right to confrontation. evidence, At the close of court the the trial, 2, 6, appellant Prior dismissed counts 102 of indict- to the filed the motion proved only testimony ment because act to the State one limine exclude the of the mother, involving jury grandmoth- of assault D.R. sexual The children’s the maternal er, officials, appellant remaining investigating convicted the of the nine police school the officer, sentencing Hasty. appellant counts. The order was and Ms. The entered be- 5, August appellant testimony on 1999. The or- lieved the these witnesses would thirty-five years hearsay to serve to dered fifteen be inadmissible which would not fall degree penitentiary any exception hearsay the count of first to each under the rule. He years Hasty’s assault to argued testimony sexual and five fifteen on also that Ms. 2, 6, alleged grandmother testify regard- the Counts and 10 of indictment children’s could not assault, incest, by children; by sexual sexual abuse ing statements made the she could parent of D.R. testify only of the actions which she observеd. appellant complain Marga- 3. The does not testimony. Spangler's ret court ruled the point, which as guided by syllabus reads this not be admitted under West should 803(4)4 excepts follows: from Rule of Evidence hearsay made for the
the
rule statements
Generally,
made
out-of-court statements
diagnosis or treatment.
purposes of medical
while
other than the declarant
someone
1)
“ruled that the statements
The circuit court
the
testifying
not
unless:
are
admissible
principle
his
being
school teacher
for
truth
not
offered
statement is
D..R.
admissible;
asserted,
the statements
for
other
were
but
some
[sic]
of the matter
counselor,
childfren)
motive, intent,
police
school
state-of-
purpose
such as
mind,
or
grandmother
and the
were inadmissi-
identification
reasonableness
offiсer
2)
action;
evidence,
is not
party’s
the statement
receiving
After
further
ble[.]”
3)
rules;
hearsay
or
the state-
Hasty’s testimony
that Ms.
court determined
excep-
an
hearsay
but falls within
ment
accepted exceptions.
It
“falls within the
in the
provided
tion
rules.
diagnosis.”
deals with treatment
Hasty
testify
court allowed Ms.
under the
ques
circuit court conducted extensive
or treatment
testimony
Akers
tioning regarding the
Ms.
rule.
prior
admitting the
give at trial
would
court was satisfied that
evidence. The
previously
explain why
testimony
This
said that
purpose
Court
was to
admissibility
After
“‘[r]ulings
reported
on the
of evidence
Akers
the incident.
reading
studying
submitted
largely within a trial court’s sound dis
record
case, we
Ms. Akers’ testi
and should not
disturbed unless
are convinced
cretion
solely
mony
explain
the rea
was offered
been an abuse
discretion.’
there has
State
639,
696,
discussed the child’s behavior with
Louk,
sons she
v.
301 S.E.2d
W.Va.
him to
grandmother and
a thera
(1983).”
his
referred
Syllabus
Pey
Point
State v.
pist for treatment. Because the statements
att,
(1983).
173W.Va.
315 S.E.2d
prove
of the
admitted not to
the truth
were
bar,
at
the case
the circuit court determined
why
but
to show
matter asserted
rather
“obviously
that D.R.’s actions at school were
incident,
reported
statements
teacher
admissible.” The
further ruled
hearsay by definition.
Statements
made
D.R. to his
the statements
teacher
truth
which are not offered for the
admissible under
v. Edward
State
implicate
do not
the Sixth
matter asserted
L.,
Charles
183 W.Va.
We Syllabus May Point 1 of v. in State the Sixth frontation Clause contained nard, 1, (1990), 221 183 393 W.Va. S.E.2d Amendment to the United States Constitu interprets Virginia prosecutions, of ‘In all criminal provides: West Rule Evidence tion 801(c) ... the hearsay in is are accused shall be confronted with defined.5 We the 803(4) Virginia 4. cause or external source thereof West Rule of Evidence states: character thе reasonably pertinent diagnosis or by hearsay as following insofar not tire excluded rule, though even the declarant is available as treatment. witness: " (4) purposes diagno- statement, 'Hearsay' of medical Statements than made is a other one 5. purposes sis or treatment. —Statements made testifying by while trial or the declarant describing diagnosis of medical or past treatment hearing, prove truth of offered in evidence to history, symptoms, present medical pain, 6r or 801(c). matter W.Va.R.Evid. asserted.” sensations, inception general or or or
457 against him.’ obviously prior judicial witnesses This clause made in a pro- Therefore, applicable through ceeding. analy- to the states unavailability made pertinent Amendment to States sis Fourteenth the United Confrontation Clause 1, Syllabus applicable.6 Constitution.” Point State v. S., 408,
James Edward
184W.Va.
400 S.E.2d
Furthermore, evidence which falls
(1990).
843
firmly
exception
under
rooted
to the hear
say
violating
rule is admissible without
principles
admitting
The basic
evi
In Syllabus
Confrontation Clause.
4
Points
dence under the Confrontation Clause were
Mason,
221,
and 6 of
194 W.Va.
460 S.E.2d
in
enunciated
James
and reiterat
Edward S.
(1995),
36
clearly
this Court
stated that:
Mason,
221,
in
ed
194
460
State
W.Va.
(1995). Syllabus
S.E.2d 36
Point 2 of Mason
though
unavailability
“Even
require-
follows:
reads as
met,
ment has been
the Confrontation
Clause contained
the Sixth Amendment
“The two
requirements
central
for ad-
to the United States Constitution man-
extrajudicial
testimony
mission
dates
the exclusion
evidence that does
the Confrontation Clause contained
adequate
reliability.
not bear
indicia of
Sixth Amendment
to the United States
usually
Reliability can
(1)
be inferred where
demonstrating
Constitution are:
falls within
firmly
evidence
rooted
unavailability
testify;
of the
witness
exception.”
5,
hearsay
Syllabus
(2)
Point
proving
reliability
witness’s
S.,
408,
State v.
Edward
James
184 W.Va.
2,
Syllabus
out-of-court statement.”
Point
(1990).
459
to whom the statement
is made does not
determine the existence and extent of sexuаl
necessarily
person.’”
Id.,
have
be
‘medical
purposes.”
abuse for trial
Wash.App.
95
case,
particular
Id. at 461. In this
the testi-
at
In
Wash.App.
State
90
(1998),
K.R. was 405, Murray, 375 possible behavior and S.E.2d aggressive W.Va. ment for omitted). (citations (1988) Hasty Ms. was aware when sexual abuse. to her for that brought D.R. treatment was Although appellant concedes that the possible disclosed sexual abuse his school had a decision to submit sexual assault whether Gohring Lopez, to Unlike the officials. competency victim to within evaluation lies brought Hasty were not to Ms. discretion, argues he circuit court’s purposes. investigative or forensic judge in not this ease erred because he did Hasty by to Ms. chil- statements attempt speak prior children to regarding the sexual abuse wеre made dren requested appellant trial. a com- After the therapeutic in a context. Her sole involve- victims, petency for both evaluation and D.R. was ment with K.R. hearing record shows the court held on the Also, the statements were treatment. April hearing, During motion. reasonably upon by Ms. they that relied were that Hasty Ms. the children would testified diagnosis and Ms. Hasty in treatment. her extremely it be be embarrassed and would Hasty’s testimony properly was admitted difficult for them to relate information to trial. strangers total in court. that She testified therefore, We, that hold when a social K.R. had with her twelve sessions before she counselor, worker, psychologist is trained therapist. During related abuse to the in a child play therapy and thereafter treats twelve, sponta- sessiоn number the disclosure play therapy, the thera- victim with abuse neously came out when the child finished pist’s testimony admissible at trial under playing of coaching. with no evidence Dis- diagnosis or treatment the medical closure for D.R. seemed easier because he rule, West Rule grandmother previously had told his and his 803(4), if the declarant’s motive Evidence But Hasty teacher about the abuse. Ms. did making is consistent with the the statement not think D.R. could face his father and talk purposes promoting treatment and the group strangers. the abuse to reasonably relied content of the statement anything Whether K.R. would answer was upon therapist by the treatment. questionable any given day. much After testimony if the was is inadmissible evidence appellant objecting discussion and investigative gathered striсtly for or forensic testimony, prosecutor closed-circuit video Moreover, purposes. statements which at- report offered to talk to the children and fault to a member of the victim’s tribute finally court back the court. The denied reasonably may pertinent household competency motion evaluations stat- thus and are admissible because ing that children had been evaluated prevention relevant these Hasty Ms. with D.R. K.R. who had met injury. of recurrence of and, multiple judge’s experience, times However, “very qualified.” appel find no merit in We said could ask defense counsel the court to lant’s that the circuit court erred contention receiving Hasty’s after Ms. treat- reconsider competency failing to order evaluation reviewing ment notes and them with his ex- attempting not child victims pert. speak pos children with the 24, 1999, prosecutor It appearance May sible at trial. is well settled On advised question they that of the of a the court with the children and competency she. met “[t]he testify largely would talk. The witness to is left to the discre not nonetheless judgment requested brought tion court and its will children be into of the trial questioned going any not unless shown been court and before fur- be disturbed to have plainly resulting request hearing abused manifest error.” ther. The denied. At a Syllabus Wilson, day, the next testified that Point State 157 W.Va. (1974). words, competent testily; by In other S.E.2d were explained “the a sexual she she meant decision whether submit mentally capable testifying but competency assault victim to a examination emotionally At heavy аble to do so. the conclusion conviction takes on burden. An *12 hearing, appellate of defense counsel asked the the court must review all the evi- ruling. dence, to court reconsider the The court circumstantial, or whether direct in ruling change to but did not declined the rule light prosecution the most favorable to the possibility out the that the defense could call and must credit all inferences and credibil- testify. to ity jury assessments that the might have drawn in prosecution. favor of the The clearly record shows that evidence evidence not be need inconsistent with ev- willing testify these children were not or ery guilt conclusion that of long save so as questions posed pros- answer the even jury guilt beyond the can find prosecutor a ecutor. The notified the сourt reasonable doubt.... jury verdict prior hearing [A] should set and defense counsel (cid:127) only aside testify. when the record the children were unavailable contains no Furthermore, evidence, according Hasty, regardless of how it weighed, the is jury children were reluctant to discuss what had from which the could guilt find be- happened therapeutic of a yond them outside a reasonable doubt. circumstances, setting. Under these can- we Syllabus part, Guthrie, Point in State v. say circuit plainly court abused its (1995). 194 W.Va. 461 163 S.E.2d resulting in discretion manifest error. The circuit court proved believed the State Lastly, appellant complains the evi- only upon one sexual assault D.R. and dis- was not dence sufficient to sustain his convic- missed the counts in the indictment incest, assault, for sexual tions and sexual upon alleged based an second sexual parent. argues a abuse He this is so of presented assault D.R. The evidence permitted because the court the State to trial was sustain appellant’s sufficient to proceed solely to trial on the basis of inad- remaining conviction on each of the charges. therefore, hearsay; says, missible he no ra- jury guilty. tional should found him have previously Since we the circuit determined III. properly
court admitted the evidence at find no merit this contention. we CONCLUSION note, nonetheless, We that “[a] We believe the evidence submitted presses defendant claim convicted who properly State was admitted at trial and was evidentiary insufficiency uphill faces an support appellant’s sufficient to conviс- LaRock, 294, 303, climb.” State v. W.Va. 196 upon foregoing, hereby tion. Based we (1996). Our standard is S.E.2d judgment affirm the of the circuit court. Guthrie, Syllabus stated Point 1 of State (1995): W.Va. S.E.2d Affirmed. function of an when reviewing sufficiency of the evidence to DAVIS, Justice concurs. support criminal conviction is to examine evidence trial to admitted at determine Justice, STARCHER, concurring: evidence, believed, is whether if suffi- (Filed 2001) July person to convince a cient reasonable guilt beyond defendant’s reasonable judgment I concur in the of the Court Thus, inquiry doubt. relevant conviction; affirming I appellant’s but whether, viewing the after evidence disagree majority’s analysis. with Spe- light prosecution, most favorable to cifically, disagree I majority opin- with the any rational could trier of fact have found upon ion’s reliance “statements proved the essential elements of the crime purposes” or treatment beyond a reasonable doubt. (West against the rule means that This 803(4)) justi- Rules Evidence fy challenging A criminal the admission defendant children’s state- sufficiency support I therapist, disagree the evidence a ments to with understanding a acceptance “play professional observant majority’s apparent state, psychological child’s emotional and especially
therapy” as credible evidence. the record there not a shred evidence 803(4) “diagnosis and treatment” The Rule I anywhere of the instant case—or else hearsay statements exception applies to by a am of—that statements made aware provider as “I care mаde to a medical —such person playing who is child hand,” a week.” been ill for my hurt “I’ve literally any likely more to be true hearsay exception is theory behind this in oth- child makes than statements *13 ordinarily and fal people that don’t fabricate fact, that suggests situations. In intuition er they they a doctor who sify what tell to may contrary true. state trying help “[A] them. is believe procuring of medi in the course ment made evidentiary I diffi- understand serious knows that a cal where the declarant services by people who are culties that are faced misdiagnosis or may cause statement abuse. investigating possible child sexual false mistreatment, special of guarantees carries as regard But are to criminal trials unless we Illinois, 502 credibility ... White v. U.S. procedure anything helps where thаt 736, 742, 346, 356, 116 L.Ed.2d 112 S.Ct. admissible, get a is prosecution to conviction added). (1992)(emphasis that we use admissi- the rules bility by chil- alleged hearsay of However, showing no that where there therapists, investigators, family dren that was aware them statement declarant patently not be false members must based purposes of medical treatment was premises. applica- not diagnosis, this (8th Erickson, 983 Ring ble. v. F.2d See light totality of I would hold Cir.1992), where court held Rule case, the circumstances in the instant 803(4) applicable not where a did was repeated statements the thera- children’s know that the interviewer not even fall pist enough reliability had indicia Accord, Class, v. 164 F.3d doctor. Olesen hearsay excep- general “catch-all” (8th Sumner, Cir.1999); and U.S. is set tion unavailable witnesses that (8th Cir.2000). F.3d 1182 forth in Rules Evidence West 804(b)(5). justified case, by the This conclusion is because there no the instant record; approach young and this would not stretch very these showing that making diagnosis excep- aware statements for the medical treatment beyond proper scope, tion its diagnosis, nor elevate purposes 803(4) heightened exception simply “play therapy” into a truth-de- does Rule tecting assuredly does realm where it most apply. belong. Syllabus disagree I Point 9 of also majority opinion, incomprehensibly judg- Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s unnecessarily therapy” “play elevates ment. into treat- the realm suggests made in
ment and that statements I am that Justice authorized state therapy special to a credi- are entitled joins in concurring opinion. ALBRIGHT bility. Anyone played has with small children who knows any length of time that children Indeed, part play. fabricate as fabrication fantasy core children’s
play. by a child While statements made may
during “play therapy” be useful an