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. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  2. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  3. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  4. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

  5. Mr. Foltz: Your comment that the ACLU is "one of the most wicked and evil organizations in existence today" clearly shows you have no real understanding of what the ACLU does for Americans. The fact that the state is paying out so much in legal fees to the ACLU is clear evidence the ACLU is doing something right, defending all of us from laws that are unconstitutional. The ACLU is the single largest advocacy group for the US Constitution. Every single citizen of the United States owes some level of debt to the ACLU for defending our rights.

ADVERTISEMENT