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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT