ILNews

Inbox: Court guts medical hearsay exception for children

May 22, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

Very quietly, over the past five years, Indiana has lifted a corner of Lady Justice’s blindfold and forced her to turn a deaf ear when she sees a child.  Instead of affording justice equally to all, our legal system now refuses to listen to any evidence other than the singular voice of the lone child on the stand at trial. No corroboration may be offered in support of the child’s testimony, and no amount of courage or credibility demonstrated in the long journey to the courthouse counts either.

When the victim of a sexual assault is an adult, we trust the competency of medical professionals to communicate their purpose to their patients; we trust trial court judges to balance the probative value and prejudice of evidence; we trust the ability of juries to assess witness credibility. But for children, we do not. We have erected the highest hurdles, practically ensuring that the best evidence of our most heinous crimes will never be admitted at trial.

On May 2, 2013, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Gerald VanPatten and gutted the medical hearsay exception as it relates to child victims. Unlike a competent adult, a child who is found competent to testify is presumed NOT to understand the importance of telling the truth to a doctor or nurse dressed in scrubs in a medical examination room.

VanPatten is a convicted child molester, sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting his daughter’s friend. He molested his daughter, too. Repeatedly. But he’ll never spend a day in prison for that. Unlike her friend, VanPatten’s daughter did not have the support of her family to face VanPatten in a crowded courtroom and tell a room full of strangers exactly what he did.

VanPatten’s daughter did find the courage to tell. She told her mother, she told a DCS worker, she told a nurse, and she even told a forensic interviewer in a videotaped interview. She gave graphic details of sexual acts unimaginable to most 6-year-olds; but that’s all hearsay. Two years later, alone on the witness stand, face-to-face with her father in a crowded courtroom, she did not have the courage to betray him. At trial, under pressure from her mother as well as her father, VanPatten’s daughter recanted. And even though the jury understood what was happening, what the child said under duress on the stand was the only evidence they could legally consider.

It’s not supposed to be that way. Because she was less than 14 years old at the time of the trial, VanPatten’s daughter is a “protected person” under Indiana Code 35-37-4-6. The prosecutor is supposed to be able to give notice of child’s statements to defense counsel, make the child available for cross-examination at a hearing, and let the trial court judge decide which statements are reliable and may be considered by the jury as evidence at trial. That’s the way it worked when I was a deputy prosecutor trying these cases. But not anymore.

There is one key element missing from Indiana’s Protected Person Statute: an explicit requirement that the trial court balance the probative value of each statement with any unfair prejudice to the defendant under Indiana Rule of Evidence 403. Rather than reading the statute to incorporate this basic rule of evidence, the Indiana Supreme Court decided that prosecutors must decide between the child’s live testimony at trial and a recorded statement taken soon after the event occurred. See Tyler v. State, 903 N.E. 2d 463 (Ind. 2009). The decision came as a complete surprise to the legal community, including those prosecutors who handled the case.  No one had raised the issue, no one had briefed the issue, and no one had anticipated such unwarranted judicial activism.

In 2010, our Indiana Appellate Court went a step further, overturning a child molester’s conviction because it was based solely on a reliable recorded statement properly vetted through the Protected Person Statute. See Cox v. State, 987 N.E.2d 874 (Ind.App. 2010, transfer denied 950 N.E.2d 1198). In other words, no matter how many reliable statements the child has given to a friend, trusted adult, professional interviewer or medical professional, the only thing that counts is what the child says on the stand at trial. While those professionals who work with children have made great strides in ensuring the reliability of the evidence gathered and preserving it in ways that assist judges and juries to determine independently the credibility of the child witness, our appellate courts have completely eviscerated our Protected Person Statute, significantly undermining justice for child victims of sexual assault.

There are, however, two simple solutions. The Legislature has the power to revise our Protected Person Statute so that it explicitly incorporates Evidence Rule 403, thus addressing the concerns raised in the Tyler, Cox, and VanPatten cases. Or the Indiana Supreme Court could expressly overrule the Tyler and Cox cases and allow our Protected Persons Statute to work the way that it is supposed to, allowing juries to hear all of the reliable evidence in these difficult cases.•

Laurie A. Gray, JD

Laurie Gray is a former Allen County deputy prosecutor and the founder of Socratic Parenting LLC (www.SocraticParenting.com). Ms. Gray also serves as a bilingual forensic interviewer at the Dr. Bill Lewis Center for Children and as an adjunct professor of criminal sciences at Indiana Tech.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Child Protection Under the Law
    The poignant arguments Ms. Gray so aptly makes point to the incredible injustices and burdens placed on children with the way the system currently functions. Most of these travesties will be borne for a lifetime by the children whose voices get lost, stifled or ignored. Statistically, many will grow up with alcohol or drug addiction as their way of "coping" with having survived, yet were not heard because they could not tell, or were not believed. How is it possible to have child labor laws in this country that prevent harm or abuse to children in a work setting, but cannot protect a child from harm or repeated abuse in their own home? It is easy to forget that children are typically violated and hurt by the ones they they are closest to, love, and trust. But when that trust is broken, shattered or abused, society turns a blind eye? In other times, and even other modern countries, it is presumed the right of the father (or guardian or master) to treat children as chattel. Thus, a child would be denied any rights or protection. If we are outraged, as a developed society, by child labor in foreign countries, how are we not outraged by what goes on every single day in countless homes in the USA. With little recourse for the survivors of these heinous crimes, what message is manifested here? It would seem a short step from invalidating protection under the law for these young persons. If society, as a whole, with laws and legal rules cannot protect a child in the home, who will? Lest we forget, there were laws to protect animals long before children in this country. Perhaps the IN Supreme Court would consider that perspective when denying children a chance to have advocates work for them?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT