State v. Rutherford , 2018 Ohio 2638 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Rutherford, 2018-Ohio-2638.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PIKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
: Case No. 17CA883
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
:
vs. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT
: ENTRY
CLINTON RUTHERFORD, :
:
Defendant-Appellant. : Released: 06/26/18
_____________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Timothy Young, Ohio State Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick,
Assistant Ohio State Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.
Robert Junk, Pike County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael A. Davis,
Assistant Pike County Prosecuting Attorney, Waverly, Ohio, for Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________
McFarland, J.
{¶1} Appellant Clinton Rutherford was convicted of rape and gross
sexual imposition after a bench trial in the Pike County Court of Common
Pleas in February 2017 and now appeals the judgment entry of sentence
journalized April 18, 2017. On appeal, he asserts the trial court erred in
permitting an unlicensed psychological counselor to testify as to certain
statements made by the victim. Based upon our review of the pertinent Ohio
case law, we find no merit to Appellant’s argument. Accordingly, we
Pike App. No. 17CA883 2
overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
FACTS
{¶2} In November 2015, Appellant’s 7-year-old daughter, “L.R.,” was
being prepped for a tonsillectomy when a nurse noticed fresh vaginal
bleeding. Upon further examination, it was determined that L.R. had
abrasions inside her vagina and outside on the vaginal area. These findings
were reported to Pike County Children’s Services, and an investigation
ensued. L.R. was removed from the home where she lived with her parents,
Appellant and Amber Rutherford, her siblings, and other extended family.1
{¶3} L.R. and her siblings went to live with a foster family in a nearby
county. Her parents had supervised weekly visits. In January 2016, L.R.
began receiving counseling for mental health issues upon referral to the
Woodland Center, a facility in Jackson, Ohio. In March 2016, L.R. made
revelations during a group counseling session at her school, regarding
Appellant, which were reported to the appropriate authorities.
{¶4} Appellant was subsequently interviewed by Major Tracy Evans
of the Pike County Sheriff’s Department. During a second interview,
Appellant explained that he had been having sex with his wife but
1
The Rutherfords and their three children lived in the basement of Appellant’s mother-in-law’s house.
Appellant’s mother-in-law lived upstairs with her significant other and his adult son.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 3
mistakenly touched L.R.’s vagina with his penis. Appellant blamed the
mistake on his being overmedicated. Appellant and his wife were thereafter
indicted jointly on various felony counts:
1) R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)- Rape of a child under ten years of age;
2) R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)- Gross sexual imposition;
3) R.C. 2919.22(B)(2)- Endangering children;
4) R.C. 2919.22(B)(2)- Endangering children;
5) R.C. 2921.04(B)(2)- Intimidation;
6) R.C. 2921.31(A)- Obstructing official business; and,
7) R.C. 2919.22(B)- Endangering children.2
{¶5} Appellant and his wife pleaded not guilty to the charges at
arraignment. Their cases were later bifurcated for purposes of trial. Prior to
Appellant’s jury trial, he elected to have a bench trial. At the
commencement of Appellant’s trial, the State of Ohio orally moved to
dismiss both counts of child endangering contained in counts three and four
of the indictment. The court granted the motion.
{¶6} During Appellant’s trial, the State presented testimony from
Brittany Bakenhaster, L.R.’s counselor at the Woodland Center; Dr. Sathish
Jetty, a pediatrician; Holly Wiggins, an investigator for Pike County
2
Counts five and six also charged Amber Rutherford. Count seven charged only Amber Rutherford.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 4
Children’s Services; and Major Evans. Several State’s exhibits were
admitted into evidence, including Appellant’s videotaped interview with
Major Evans. At the close of the State’s evidence, the defense made a
Crim.R. 29 motion as to counts one, two, five, and six of the indictment.
The court granted the motion as to count five, intimidation.
{¶7} The defense presented testimony from L.R.’s foster parent, Heidi
Harris. Ms. Harris testified in detail about many troubling behaviors she
observed in L.R.3 Some of these behaviors were violent to herself or others.
Ms. Harris often observed L.R. “rough-housing” or “brawling” with her
brothers. Ms. Harris also testified she saw L.R. remove her Barbie dolls’
clothes and rub the dolls together while explaining “that’s what you do when
you are naked.”
{¶8} Appellant also testified in his own defense. Appellant denied
ever engaging in any type of sexual activity with L.R. He testified she liked
to play rough with her brothers, riding toy trucks downhill and climbing
trees. He testified he observed her, 48-hours prior to his interview with
Major Evans, “messing with herself with her fingers” and with her Barbie
dolls. He testified when he met with Major Evans, he thought he was
hopeful that the meeting would lead to getting his children back and
3
During her testimony, Ms. Harris reviewed notes she and her husband had made regarding their
observations of L.R. and her brothers while in their care.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 5
reuniting the family. Appellant explained that he lied to Major Evans during
the interview because he felt trapped and degraded. He felt he had no choice
and he made the statement incriminating himself so “at least the children
could go back to their mother.” At the close of trial, the court found
Appellant guilty on count one, rape, and count two, gross sexual imposition.
Appellant was found not guilty as to count six, obstructing official business.4
{¶9} Appellant was sentenced on April 4, 2017 and resentenced on
April 18, 2017 in order for the court to impose a mandatory period of post-
release control. This timely appeal followed. Additional facts gleaned from
the trial testimony are set forth below, where pertinent.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
I. “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING AN
UNLICENSED PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELOR TO
TESTIFY ABOUT HEARSAY STATEMENTS THAT
L.R. ALLEGEDLY MADE.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶10} “Decisions involving the admissibility of evidence are reviewed
under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” State v. Wright, 4th Dist.
Lawrence No. 16CA24, 2017-Ohio-9041, at ¶ 24, quoting Estate of Johnson
4
The April 18, 2017 judgment entry of sentence reflects that count seven of the indictment charged only
Amber Rutherford. As explained in In re Helfrich, 5th Dist. Licking No.13CA20, 2014-Ohio-1933, at ¶ 35,
we may take judicial notice of the Pike County Court of Common Pleas website which reflects that on
March 15, 2017, Amber Rutherford pleaded guilty to count six, obstructing official business. On that same
date, counts five and seven were dismissed as to Amber Rutherford. See
http://pikecountycpcourt.org/eservices, accessed April 25, 2018. Therefore, all counts of the indictment
have been resolved and no issue exists as to the finality of the April 18, 2017 judgment entry.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 6
v. Randall Smith, Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 440, 2013-Ohio-1507, 989 N.E.2d 35,
¶ 22, citing State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, 840
N.E.2d 1032; State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012-Ohio-2407, 972
N.E.2d 528, ¶ 19. Thus, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's
ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence absent a clear showing of an
abuse of discretion with attendant material prejudice to defendant. State v.
Green, 184 Ohio App.3d 406, 2009-Ohio-5199, 921 N.E.2d 276, ¶ 14 (4th
Dist.).
{¶11} When, however, an appellant alleges that a trial court's
evidentiary ruling was “ ‘based on an erroneous standard or a
misconstruction of the law,’ ” an appellate court reviews the trial court's
evidentiary ruling using a de novo standard of review. Wright, supra, at
¶ 25, quoting Wray v. Wessell, 4th Dist. Scioto Nos. 15CA3724 and
15CA3725, 2016-Ohio-8584, at ¶ 13, citing Morris at ¶ 16, quoting
Castlebrook, Ltd. v. Dayton Properties Ltd. Partnership, 78 Ohio App.3d
340, 346, 604 N.E.2d 808 (2nd Dist.1992); accord Estate of Johnson at ¶ 22
(reviewing admissibility of evidence by first examining whether, as a matter
of law, statute applied, and then once threshold question concerning
applicability of statute resolved, reviewing whether trial court abused its
discretion); Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181, 2009-
Pike App. No. 17CA883 7
Ohio-2496, 909 N.E.2d 1237, ¶ 13 (stating that “[w]hen a court's judgment
is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, an abuse-of-discretion
standard is not appropriate”); Painter and Pollis, Ohio Appellate Practice,
Appendix G (2015) (stating that although trial court decisions involving the
admission of evidence are generally reviewed as a discretionary matter, but
they are subject to de novo review if a clear legal rule applies. “For
example, a trial court does not have discretion to admit hearsay into
evidence”).
LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶12} In Appellant’s sole assignment of error, he essentially asserts
that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting inadmissible hearsay
evidence into the record. The hearsay statements at issue were allegedly
made by L.R. to her counselor, Brittany Bakenhaster, during group therapy.
At trial and relevant to this appeal, Appellant objected specifically to Ms.
Bakenhaster’s testimony that L.R. made the following statements to her:
“I used to live in Waverly, with my mom and dad. My dad
touched me one time, and I got taken away. He knew he would
get in trouble after he touched me. He never touched me
again.”
***
“My dad shouldn’t have done that to me. I was told by people
that my dad had sex with me because he made me
bleed.”(Emphasis added.)
Pike App. No. 17CA883 8
***
“[S]ex is for big people, it’s not for little kids. That’s
something that big people do. I don’t understand why my dad
would do something like that to me. I don’t see my dad
anymore. The services people took me from my mom and dad
and now I live with my foster parents. Emma is my foster
mom. I glad (sic) that I am not touched like that anymore. If
anybody ever tried to hurt me like that again, I would kick them
in the nuts, if they are a boy.”
***
“I would hurt the woman differently if the woman ever tried to
touch me. Nobody’s ever going to hurt me like that again.”
{¶13} Appellant sets forth the issue for review as to whether
psychological counseling is legitimately considered to be medical treatment.
However, he further criticizes the hearsay statements as being made by an
“unlicensed” psychological counselor. Based upon our review of Ohio law
in this area, we find that the hearsay statements admitted into evidence at
Appellant’s trial were permissible in that the questionable statements were
made to a case manager assisting a psychological counseling team and were
made for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment of mental issues.
{¶14} Statements made outside of the courtroom, offered at trial to
prove the truth of what they assert, are generally inadmissible as “hearsay”
unless an exception applies. State v. Knauff, 4th Dist. Adams No. 10CA900,
2011-Ohio-2725, at ¶ 27; Evid.R. 801(C); Evid.R. 802; State v. DeMarco,
Pike App. No. 17CA883 9
31 Ohio St.3d 191, 195, 509 N.E.2d 1256 (1987). Out-of-court statements
made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment are hearsay, but are
admissible in court under the hearsay exception provided in Evid.R. 803(4).
Id. Such statements are only admissible “insofar as reasonably pertinent to
diagnosis or treatment.” Evid.R. 803(4). Id.{¶15} At Appellant’s trial, Ms. Bakenhaster began by testifying that
she has a bachelor’s degree in psychology, a master’s degree in school
counseling, and a master’s degree in professional counseling with pending
licensure. Ms. Bakenhaster is employed as a case manager at Woodland
Center. Woodland Center is an agency for treatment of children with mental
issues by staff psychologists and psychiatrists.
{¶16} Ms. Bakenhaster further testified that Woodland provides
individual and group counseling. She began working with L.R. in group
counseling at L.R.’s school in January 2016. Children come into the group
because of behavioral reasons or trauma-based issues. Ms. Bakenhaster
testified when she receives information through counseling, she provides it
to her superiors. Ms. Bakenhaster is supervised by staff psychologist Mary
Brown.
{¶17} Ms. Bakenhaster testified she had a treatment plan for L.R. and
her group. The plan implemented creative measures for helping the children
Pike App. No. 17CA883 10
express the emotional pain they experienced. Ms. Bakenhaster discussed the
group treatment plan with Mary Brown. The ultimate purpose for Ms.
Bakenhaster’s counseling with L.R. was to help her: (1) have better self-
esteem; (2) understand that there are good people in the world; (3)
understand that she can trust people; (4) learn to communicate positively
with others; and, (5) understand that she can express her thoughts and
concerns in a safe environment.
{¶18} At trial, defense counsel objected to any questioning regarding
discussions L.R. may have had with Ms. Bakenhaster about her father,
Appellant. Defense counsel referred to Ms. Bakenhaster as an “unlicensed
counselor.” However, the prosecutor argued that Ms. Bakenhaster’s
statements were admissible pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4) because she acted as
an assistant gathering information for the purpose of psychological
treatment. On appeal, Appellant emphasizes that the hearsay statements
were critical to the State’s case, given that the only medical testimony
regarding L.R.’s injuries was not specific so as to identify a source of injury,
and also given that Appellant’s interrogation by Major Evans was coercive.5
5
The State’s brief in response provides an in-depth discussion regarding the legitimacy of Major Evans’
interview with Appellant. We first note that parties must comply with the Ohio Rules of Appellate
Procedure. If not, App.R. 12(A)(2) permits us to disregard those assignments of error that are not
separately argued. Prokos v. Hines, 4th Dist. Athens Nos. 10CA51, 10CA57, 2014-Ohio-1415, at ¶ 63.
Here, Appellant did not raise any issue with regard to Major Evans’ interview under a separate assignment
of error. “While appellate courts have the option to address two or more assignments of error at once, the
parties do not.” In the Matter of B.M., 4th Dist. Hocking No. 16CA12, 2017-Ohio-7878, at ¶ 22; Powell v.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 11
{¶19} For the reasons which follow, we find the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when admitting L.R.’s out-of-court statements to Ms.
Bakenhaster, a case manager who provided group counseling for mental
health issues to L.R. at her school. We begin by setting forth the parameters
for admission of hearsay statements under Evid.R. 803 (4). In this court’s
decision in State v. Knauff, supra, we observed that when deciding whether
hearsay is reliable enough for admission under Evid.R. 803(4), courts look at
several factors. Id. at ¶ 28. We observed:
“The first ‘factor’ is the “selfish-motive” doctrine, i.e., “the
belief that the declarant is motivated to speak truthfully to a
physician because of the patient's self-interest in obtaining an
accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.” Id. quoting State v.
Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5, 2007–Ohio–5267, 875 N.E.2d 944,
at ¶ 34, citing State v. Eastham, 39 Ohio St.3d 307, 312, 530
N.E.2d 409 (1988) (Brown, J., concurring). Another factor
courts consider is the medical professional's subjective reliance
on the statement, because “physicians, by virtue of their
training and experience, are quite competent to determine
whether particular information given to them in the course of a
professional evaluation is ‘reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or
treatment [,]’ and are not prone to rely upon inaccurate or false
data in making a diagnosis or in prescribing a course of
treatment.” Id. at ¶ 41, 530 N.E.2d 409, quoting King v. People
(Colo.1990), 785 P.2d 596, 602. In Muttart, the Supreme Court
of Ohio observed that the professional reliance factor is of
“great import” in cases of child abuse. Id.”
Vanlandingham, 4th Dist. Washington No. 10CA24, 2011-Ohio-3208, at ¶ 24; Keffer v. Cent. Mut. Ins.
Co., 4th Dist. Vinton No. 06CA652, 2007-Ohio-3984, at ¶ 8, fn.2. Since Appellant did not set forth a
separate assignment of error and separate arguments regarding the interview, we are permitted to disregard
the issue and we hereby choose to do so.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 12
{¶20} In Knauff at ¶ 29, we also cited Muttart’s “non-exhaustive list
of additional factors that a court should weigh when considering whether
out-of-court statements obtained from a young child are admissible under
this exception”:
“(1) Whether medical professionals questioned the child in a
leading or suggestive manner and whether the medical
professional followed proper protocol in eliciting a disclosure
of abuse;
(2) Whether the child had a reason to fabricate, e.g., a pending
legal proceeding or bitter custody battle;
(3) Whether the child understood the need to tell the medical
professional the truth; and
(4) Whether the age of the child could indicate the presence or
absence of an ability to fabricate a story. Id. at ¶ 49, 875 N.E.2d
944.”
{¶21} In the case presently before us, the trial court initially sustained
counsel’s objections and required additional foundational testimony. Ms.
Bakenhaster continued, testifying that children are allowed to talk about
alleged abuse as part of a treatment plan in order to address their pain.
Through “draw therapy,” where children are encouraged to draw their
parents, the counselors can learn “family dynamics.” Using this
information, the treatment plan can address problem behaviors.
Psychologists make suggestions based upon what is learned from the “draw”
or “play therapy.” Psychologists may question the child’s medications, how
Pike App. No. 17CA883 13
the child is progressing, how treatment is affecting the child, and suggest
additional resources. The psychologists enter the data she gives them into
the database.
{¶22} Ms. Bakenhaster encouraged L.R. to express her feelings
through draw and play therapy. Ms. Bakenhaster also testified if L.R. or
other children made statements during group therapy sessions, she would
begin to look for marks or evidence on the body in order to make a further
report. If additional evidence supported a disclosure, she would report to
Children’s Services and discuss with Mary Brown.
{¶23} Ms. Bakenhaster testified L.R. disclosed quite a bit of
information in March 2016 while Ms. Bakenhaster was conducting a group
therapy session at the school and while she was encouraging the children to
draw and express what was going on in their lives. She testified that the
disclosures L.R. made to her were entered in the database, stored, and
reviewed with the staff psychologist as part of her treatment. Ms.
Bakenhaster opined that the disclosure showed L.R. was progressing in her
treatment and more able to trust her. Ms. Bakenhaster concluded her direct
testimony stating she discussed the disclosed information with her
supervisor and incorporated the information into L.R.’s treatment plan. Part
Pike App. No. 17CA883 14
of the treatment plan was simply continuing to talk with L.R. about what had
happened to her.
{¶24} Appellant argues that L.R.’s statements were used for purposes
of psychotherapy but not for medical treatment. Appellant emphasizes that
psychotherapy is not medical treatment under Evid.R. 803(4) because
psychotherapists cannot practice medicine. However, as we observed in our
decision in State v. Wilson, 4th Dist. Adams No. 99CA672, 2000 WL
228242 (Feb. 18, 2001), at *7, Evid.R. 803(4) is not limited to statements
relating to physical condition. Statements made during the course of a
psychological examination may also be admissible provided that the purpose
of the examination is to diagnose or treat the victim's psychological
condition. Id. at *7. See State v. Vaughn (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 775, 780;
State v. McWhite, 73 Ohio App.3d (6th Dist.1991), 323, 329-330. And,
Evid.R. 803(4) does not require that the statements be made to a specific
type of health care provider as long as made for purposes of diagnosis or
treatment. Id. at *7. Thus, a statement may still be within the scope of the
exception if it is directed to other physical and mental health professionals,
including nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists. Id., citing State
v. Chappell (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 515, 530, 646 N.E. 2d 9441 (8th
Dist.1994).
Pike App. No. 17CA883 15
{¶25} We considered the requirements of Evid.R. 803(4) in an older
case in this district, State v. Robison, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 85-CA-12,
1986 WL 11935 (Oct. 22, 1986). Robison was found guilty of felonious
sexual penetration and felonious assault after his natural daughter, aged
seven, was rushed to the hospital bleeding profusely from the vagina, and
with multiple bruising on her body and extremities. On appeal, Robison
contended that Evid.R. 803(4) did not include statements made to a
psychologist. We disagreed.
{¶26} We pointed out the record revealed that the child was referred
to the county mental health facility by her guardian ad litem and by the
county children's services for psychological evaluation and therapy. She has
been diagnosed as having an over anxious disorder, and as needing
psychological treatment. The child's eventual statement came as a natural
result of therapy.
{¶27} We disagreed with Robison’s contention that Evid.R. 803(4)
does not include statements made to a psychologist. We observed that
Evid.R. 803(4) does not specify to whom the statement must be made.
Further, the statements were made as part of the emotional healing process,
and as such, were made for the purposes of medical treatment.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 16
{¶28} Robison also contended his identity as the perpetrator of the
girl's injuries was not a statement that is pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
We again disagreed, observing at *5:
“Careful consideration of the purpose and scope of the child's
therapy leads us to believe that in this instance, the identity of
the perpetrator is pertinent to medical diagnosis. * * * An
important part of diagnosis and treatment is to discern the
source of injury and trauma to a child, and to isolate the child
from that influence. 4 Weinstein, Evidence (1981) 803(4)(01) p.
803-129 states:
‘* * * in the case of a statement made for treatment the test is
not only whether the declarant thought it relevant (thereby
establishing reliability), but also whether a doctor would have
reasonably relied upon such statement in deciding upon a
course of treatment.’ We believe Dr. Jones would have a
responsibility to rely upon the child's statement in shaping the
course of therapy for her, and in making any recommendations
as to her placement in a foster home or a return to her family. In
a child abuse case like the one at bar, the identity of the
perpetrator makes a marked difference in the doctor's ability to
help the child, and is integral to medical diagnosis and
treatment.”
{¶29} Our later decision in Knauff, supra, provided similar general
guidance. Knauff was convicted by a jury of rape of his five-year-old
daughter. On appeal, he argued a videotape interview of his daughter by a
social worker was not admissible as it constituted hearsay. After receiving a
report from the Adams County Sheriff’s office, a social worker, Cecelia
Friehofer at the Mayerson Clinic at Cincinnati Children's Hospital, evaluated
the child and recorded a one-hour interview. Knauff argued his daughter
Pike App. No. 17CA883 17
could not have known her statements on the videotape were made for the
purposes of medical treatment.
{¶30} At trial Friehofer discussed the general methodology behind a
“forensic interview. She explained that one purpose of the lengthy interview
was to gain as much information as possible so that the child would not have
to discuss the abuse with others. Another purpose of the interview was to
gain information so that medical staff could make appropriate decisions
concerning necessary physical or mental health treatment. Because Knauff’s
daughter advised Friehofer: “[T]hat's why I'm here – to see a doctor,” we
found her statement satisfied the foundational requirement.
{¶31} Knauff also contended that many other questions and answers
in the interview went beyond what was necessary to provide the child’s
medical provider information about physical symptoms. Knauff in essence
disputed whether the professional reliance component of reliability was
present because the Friehofer and the child discussed other topics such as
weather, school, and locations where there abuse occurred. We observed,
however, that Friehofer testified about additional purposes of the interview
such as to provide recommendations not only for a course of physical
treatment but also for recommendations on “therapy” and “psychological
assistance.” We observed:
Pike App. No. 17CA883 18
“Friehofer used the hour-long interview with the then five-year-
old victim to gain an understanding of the type and extent of
abuse D.K. experienced. True, many of her answers went
beyond what was necessary to conduct a basic physical
examination. But all of D.K.'s statements, even those tangential
or unrelated to the physical effects of the abuse, reasonably
assisted Friehofer and subsequent medical professionals with
the information necessary to prescribe a proper course of
physical and mental treatment for the child. In fact, the record
reflects that D.K. underwent at least two months of counseling
sessions prior to the trial.”
{¶32} At trial, the State directed the trial court to State v. Fread, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2013-03-045, 2013-Ohio-5206. Fread appealed his
conviction for domestic violence perpetuated against his 13-year-old step-
son, C.R. After speaking with police, C.R. had given a statement to a
psychologist, Dr. Knight. One of his arguments on appeal was that Dr.
Knight’s testimony regarding C.R.’s statements to him was inadmissible
hearsay not subject to the 803(4) exception on the basis of medical diagnosis
or treatment. The Fread court observed at ¶ 18:
“This court has previously held that statements made during the
course of a psychological examination are admissible to the
same extent as statements made to a treating physician,
provided that the purpose of the psychological examination is
the diagnosis and treatment of the victim's psychological
condition, rather than gathering evidence against the accused.
State v. Vaughn, 106 Ohio App.3d 775, 780 (12th Dist.1995).
In addition, the determination of whether Evid.R. 803(4)
applies is based upon the purpose for which the statement was
made rather than whether the person to whom the statement was
made subsequently testifies as a lay witness or an expert.
Finally, it is irrelevant whether diagnosis or treatment actually
Pike App. No. 17CA883 19
occurs for Evid.R. 803(4) to apply. All that is required is that
the statements were made for the purpose of diagnosis or
treatment.”
{¶33} Appellant has directed us to the Sixth District’s decision in
State v. McWhite. 73 Ohio App.3d 323, 329, 597 N.E.2d 168 (6th
Dist.1991), arguing that McWhite cautioned against a “literal reading of
Evid.R. 803(4) and, therefore, Evid. R. 803(4) should be limited to
statements made to medical personnel. Upon review of McWhite, we fail to
see how this case supports Appellant’s argument. In 1988, McWhite was
indicted on two counts of aggravated murder of his girlfriend and her minor
daughter. McWhite’s 3-year-old son Jake was found at the murder scene
with marks on his neck suggesting attempted strangulation. McWhite was
eventually tried and convicted by a jury.
{¶34} Dr. Scully, a clinical psychologist, testified at trial that he had
treated Jake for emotional and behavioral problems and that during
treatment sessions Jake mentioned the events leading up to the murders of
his mother and sister. Jake’s recollections were crucial in that he was the
only witness present other than the defendant and a co-defendant when
Jake’s mother and sister were killed. However, Jake could not testify as a
witness since he was found incompetent. Before Dr. Scully took the stand,
defense counsel made a continuing objection on the record to anything Dr.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 20
Scully would testify to regarding statements made to him by Jake. The trial
judge noted on the record that the objection was to apply to all testimony of
Dr. Scully. Dr. Scully testified to various incriminating statements Jake told
him during counseling.
{¶35} On appeal, McWhite challenged Dr. Scully’s testimony on two
grounds, one being that the trial court allowed Dr. Scully to opine as to
Jake’s veracity. The trial court found merit to this argument. Relevant
however to this appeal, McWhite also argued that the trial court erred in
admitting Dr. Scully's testimony under Evid.R. 803(4) since Dr. Scully was
a clinical psychologist and not a medical doctor. The McWhite court
commented that Evid.R. 803(4) does not explicitly limit its scope to
statements regarding the declarant's bodily condition. Weissenberger's Ohio
Evidence (1991) 55, Section 803.48. McWhite at 73 Ohio App.3d 329.
McWhite further noted that the Staff Note to Evid.R. 803(4) is silent on the
issue of whether or not a clinical psychologist's testimony is admissible. Id.{¶36} In its opinion, the McWhite court discussed at length the
compelling interest safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being
of minor victims. Citing State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 545 N.E.2d
1220 (1989), the McWhite court noted at 329:
“As child abuse cases increase throughout the country at an
alarming rate it has become apparent that psychological
Pike App. No. 17CA883 21
counseling is just as important in treating child victims of crime
as is medical treatment for the child's physical injuries. To
unequivocally exclude clinical psychologists and other
professionals from the scope of Evid.R. 803(4) is to ignore the
reality that these people are trained professionals qualified to
render objective opinions on the probability that a child has
been subjected to abuse. These professionals play an invaluable
role in cases involving very young children like Jake McWhite.
Moreover, the language of Evid.R. 803(4) focuses on the
declarant's motivation in making the statement, rather than to
whom it was made. We believe that the syllabus of Boston does
not preclude the testimony of clinical psychologists and other
professionals in cases involving child victims of crime. Rather,
it is in keeping within the spirit and purpose of Evid.R. 803(4).”
{¶37} McWhite further contended that at the time of his treatment,
Jake was too young to understand the necessity of being truthful with Dr.
Scully. Citing our decision in Robison, the appellate court pointed out that
Jake met with Dr. Scully approximately one hundred times over a one-year
period. As he progressed in his treatment, young Jake began to refer to Dr.
Scully as “Dr. Terry,” clearly recognizing the doctor as an authority figure.
We believe as in Robison, supra, that at some level young Jake understood
that he was receiving help from Dr. Scully and he was therefore motivated to
tell the truth. The McWhite court found no merit to the appellant’s argument
that the hearsay statements of Jake were improperly admitted because Dr.
Scully was not a medical doctor.
{¶38} In State v. Jett, 11th Dist. Portage No. 97-P-0023, 1998 WL
258166, the appellate court also cited the principles set forth in Chappell,
Pike App. No. 17CA883 22
Vaughn, and McWhite. Jett was convicted by a jury of the sexual
penetration of a four-year-old girl. The Jett court noted that although most
hearsay declarations offered into admission under Evid.R. 803(4) will have
been made to a physician by a patient seeking medical diagnosis or
treatment, the rule does not require that such a declaration be made to a
physician or be about bodily condition. See Weissenberger, Ohio Evidence
(1997) 403-404, Sections 803.47 and 803.48. There the victim’s mother
contacted a psychologist regarding defiant behavior of the victim and her
young brother. Eventually, the victim told the psychologist that the mother’s
live-in boyfriend had touched her private parts.
{¶39} The Jett court observed that a trial court must consider the
circumstances surrounding the making of the hearsay statement. However,
Jett ultimately concluded that since there was insufficient evidence
indicating that the victim was aware that her statements were made for the
purpose of psychological diagnosis or treatment, the statements should have
been excluded on the basis that they fell outside the scope of Evid.R. 803(4).
In Jett, the trial court’s judgment was reversed and Jett’s case remanded.
{¶40} In State v. Tillman, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-XX-XXXXXXX-
Ohio- 6240, Tillman was indicted for rape of a child under ten and gross
sexual imposition after M.C., a friend’s child, told a social worker that
Pike App. No. 17CA883 23
someone had “put a finger in her.” He was convicted by a jury. On appeal,
Tillman argued the trial court erred in permitting the state’s psychological
assistant to testify regarding his evaluation, diagnosis, and various hearsay
statements made by M.C.
{¶41} While this case differs in that the witness was qualified as an
expert, the appellate court referenced the same principles as previously cited
in Vaughn. See also State v. Goins, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2000–09–190,
2001–Ohio–8647. The appellate court thus found that based upon the
circumstances surrounding the social worker’s interview with M.C., the
interview with the victim was conducted so as to recommend treatment for
the victim, even though he may not have made the ultimate diagnosis. Id. at
24.
{¶42} Applying the Muttart factors in this case, we find L.R.’s
statements were made in the context of group therapy and for the purpose of
diagnosis and treatment of the mental issues she had been having. Our
review of the record demonstrates an absence of evidence to suggest Ms.
Bakenhaster questioned L.R. in a leading or suggestive manner. L.R. made
the statements to Ms. Bakenhaster in group counseling. Ms. Bakenhaster
had facilitated discussion about family dynamics through draw and play
therapy.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 24
{¶43} Furthermore, Ms. Bakenhaster’s testimony revealed the
statements were made after approximately 2 months in therapy. Ms.
Bakenhaster opined that she had established a level of trust at the time L.R.
made her statements, which had not been previously established. Similar to
the analysis set forth in McWhite, supra, we perceive this fact as suggesting
that L.R. understood the need to tell the truth and that she was telling the
truth for the purpose of receiving some sort of help.
{¶44} However, Appellant has also pointed out that Ms. Bakenhaster
is not a licensed psychologist or psychotherapist. A similar issue was raised
in our own decision in State v. Wilson, supra. Wilson was charged with one
count of penetration and one count of rape based on allegations from his
five-year-old former stepdaughter Alexandria. Alexandria and her mother
testified at trial. Her mother testified she first took the child to a
psychotherapist, Mrs. Harffman, when her behavior changed. Ms. Harffman
testified that Alexandria revealed during a counseling session that she had
been sexually abused. Defense witnesses however testified to instances of
sexual activity they had observed. Wilson testified and denied sexually
abusing Alexandra. He was convicted by a jury of both charges.
{¶45} On appeal, Wilson challenged Alexandria’s competency to
testify, the admissibility of certain exhibits, the sufficiency of the evidence,
Pike App. No. 17CA883 25
and his consecutive sentence. Relevant to this appeal, Wilson argued that
the trial court erred in admitting State's Exhibit 3, an examination report
from the SAM Clinic prepared by Amy Herbert. The trial court found the
exhibit admissible under Evid.R. 803(4), essentially summarizing that the
court may admit a child's statements if they are made for purposes of
medical diagnosis or treatment and there is no evidence to cast doubt upon
the child's motivation for making the statements.
{¶46} Wilson specifically argued that the exhibit should not have been
admitted because there was no testimony regarding the qualifications of
Amy Herbert. We reiterated the principles of Chappell, Vaughn, and
McWhite. We concluded, however that:
“As to State's Exhibit 3, there was testimony from Ms. Herbert
that she was employed as a graduate intern at the SAM Clinic
and that her duties were to interview Alexandria and then
discuss Alexandria's statements with the doctor for purposes of
her examination. Furthermore, State's Exhibit 3 includes Ms.
Herbert's signature followed by the letters LSW, which
indicates that Ms. Herbert is a licensed social worker. See State
v. Dumas (Feb. 19, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-581,
unreported (holding that statements made to a social worker
whose duty was to interview children and provide the
information to the medical staff were admissible pursuant to
Evid.R. 803(4)). Ms. Herbert was acting as part of the medical
team for purposes of treating Alexandria. Both Ms. Harffman
and Ms. Herbert are licensed social workers who were
diagnosing and treating Alexandria. The fact that they are not
medical doctors does not per se require exclusion of the
reports.” Wilson, supra, at *7.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 26
{¶47} In the present case, although Ms. Bakenhaster was not a
licensed psychologist or psychotherapist, she was acting as part of a medical
team for purposes of treating L.R. Ms. Bakenhaster testified as part of her
employment, she conducted group counseling and any information she
received regarding L.R. or any other child in the group, was entered into a
database. Ms. Bakenhaster and her supervisor, the staff psychologist,
professionally relied on the statements in reviewing L.R.’s treatment plan.
Under these circumstances, we do not find the hearsay statements were
improperly admitted.
{¶48} For the foregoing reasons, we find no error or abuse of
discretion by the trial court’s admission of L.R.’s out of court statements.
As such, we overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Pike App. No. 17CA883 27
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and that costs be
assessed to Appellant.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing
the Pike County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE
UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL
COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to
exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a
continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio
an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If
a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the
expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a
notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal
period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the
appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date
of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hoover, P.J. & Harsha, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court,
BY: _____________________________
Matthew W. McFarland, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final
judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from
the date of filing with the clerk.