State v. Juan P. Benitez ( 2022 )

January 25, 2022
Supreme Court
No. 2018-240-C.A.
(P2/14-2095A)
State :
v. :
Juan P. Benitez. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any
typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court
No. 2018-240-C.A.
(P2/14-2095A)
State :
v. :
Juan P. Benitez. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Robinson, for the Court. The defendant, Juan P. Benitez, appeals
from a July 28, 2017 judgment of conviction and commitment on one count of
second-degree child molestation entered following a jury trial. On appeal, the
defendant contends that: (1) “the trial court erred when it permitted [a physician
testifying as an expert witness] to testify to hearsay statements unrelated to medical
diagnosis or treatment;” and (2) “the trial court impermissibly allowed the state to
mislead the jury by impeaching a witness with a statement he did not author, sign,
or review.”
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the
Superior Court.
-1-
I
Facts and Travel
On July 14, 2014, Mr. Benitez was charged by criminal information with
one count of second-degree child molestation for having “engage[d] in sexual
contact” with his biological daughter, Nancy,1 when she was “fourteen (14) years
of age or under, in violation of [G.L. 1956] § 11-37-8.3 and § 11-37-8.4 * * *.” A
trial ultimately took place over seven days in March of 2017. We relate below the
salient aspects of that trial.
A
The Testimony of Nancy
Nancy testified that, at the time of trial, she was sixteen years old. At trial,
she identified defendant as her biological father, and it was her testimony that she
had two younger sisters who were also the biological children of defendant. She
added that, when her parents separated, she lived with her mother. She further
testified that her father lived with her grandmother, her six uncles, and one of her
1
For the purposes of confidentiality, we refer to the complaining witness
pseudonymously.
-2-
aunts in Providence.2 She went on to state that she saw defendant “most of the
weekends” and that her sisters accompanied her on those visits.
It was then Nancy’s testimony that, during those visits, her father would
“take his penis, and put it in [her] butt and rub it there.” She added that the abuse
started when she was six years old. She stated that “in the beginning it would be
like a game of some sort, to see who can get their clothes and get their pants off
first.” She testified that the abuse would “happen a lot[.]” She described a specific
instance of abuse that purportedly occurred in the closet in her father’s bedroom
after she had taken a shower; it was her testimony that her sisters were in the same
bedroom watching television at the time.
Nancy then testified that she told a cousin of hers about the abuse and that
her cousin passed that information on to her own mother, who was Nancy’s aunt.
She added that, when her cousin made that disclosure, Nancy’s grandmother was
also present. She further stated that her grandmother “pull[ed her] aside” and
asked if she was “sure” that her father was “not just playing around, playing a joke
like he does sometimes * * *.”
Nancy explained during her testimony that, on a particular occasion when a
party was taking place, defendant “kept on calling” her and “tried to pull [her] into
2
It was Nancy’s testimony that, at some point, her father moved to a different
location—although a number of his family members, including her grandmother,
continued to reside with him.
-3-
the bathroom;” she added that she “pulled away,” cried, and told defendant that she
“didn’t want that anymore, and * * * didn’t like it.” It was her testimony that the
abuse ended after that interaction.
It was Nancy’s testimony that a time came when she told her mother about
the abuse. She testified that she told her mother because her mother had found out
that Nancy was cutting herself on her wrist with a knife and her mother was
“scared that [Nancy] would do something to [her] sisters because she didn’t
understand what was happening.” Nancy added that she engaged in cutting
behavior because she hoped that it would “distract” her mind from thinking about
the abuse that she had suffered. She further testified that she told her mother about
the abuse because, if she was not “able to see” her sisters, she “didn’t know if [she]
could protect them” or “didn’t know that maybe something like that [was]
happening to them too * * *.”
In the course of a lengthy and thorough cross-examination of Nancy, she
was questioned about her sisters being in the room during some of the instances of
abuse, and she maintained that that was the case. She was also cross-examined
with respect to her disclosure of the abuse to her cousin and the reactions of her
aunt and grandmother.
-4-
B
The Testimony of Dr. Adebimpe Adewusi
Immediately prior to the testimony of Adebimpe Adewusi, M.D., a doctor
who treated Nancy, defense counsel moved to exclude any mention by said doctor
of the fact that Nancy had suicidal thoughts stemming from her concern that she
could not protect her sisters from suffering the same abuse as she allegedly had
suffered. Counsel contended that such statements were not relevant to medical
diagnosis and thus did not fall within that exception to the hearsay rule; he added
that the statements constituted impermissible bolstering and vouching. In
response, the prosecutor asked “that the Court allow the doctor to testify simply
that [Nancy] showed concern for her sisters.” The trial justice ruled that the
statement that Nancy was concerned about her sisters was “reasonably pertinent to
[Nancy’s] past suicidal ideations.” He also commented that Nancy’s concern for
her sisters would “not be new to the jury.”
Subsequent to the trial justice’s ruling, defense counsel raised an additional
objection to the doctor’s testimony. He contended that the doctor should not be
permitted to testify with respect to what Nancy told the doctor about her disclosure
of the abuse to her cousin, which information eventually was passed on to her aunt
and was heard by her grandmother; nor, defense counsel further contended, should
the doctor be permitted to testify with respect to what Nancy told her about the
-5-
responses to that disclosure. Defense counsel argued that such statements did not
fall within the exception to the hearsay rule concerning statements made for the
purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. He then posited that the doctor should
also not be permitted to testify as to Nancy’s statement that her sisters were in the
room when some of the abuse allegedly occurred; he argued that that statement
was “narrative * * *.” The trial justice overruled defendant’s objection and stated
as follows:
“[The statements at issue were] examples of different
pressures that may play upon the mind of a patient who
presents to a physician and the physician knows that
there were past suicidal ideations, although, never
attempts. It’s incumbent upon the physician to look into
all particular matters that may affect what went into those
suicidal ideations. These statements are inextricably
intertwined with the physician’s exam and in taking of
the history and the obtaining of all relevant and
reasonably pertinent information.”
Doctor Adewusi then testified that she worked at Hasbro Children’s Hospital
as a “child abuse pediatrics fellow,” meaning that she specialized in the area of
child abuse pediatrics. Having been qualified as an expert, Dr. Adewusi testified
about the type of examination she usually conducts and how she conducted
Nancy’s physical examination. When the prosecutor started to question the doctor
about her conversation with Nancy prior to beginning the physical examination,
defendant incorporated by reference his previous objections to the doctor’s
-6-
testimony. The prosecutor then requested permission to proceed by posing leading
questions to the doctor, and defense counsel stated that he had no objection.
The remainder of the doctor’s testimony, which spans only three transcript
pages, proceeded in pertinent part as follows:
“[PROSECUTOR]: And during your talk and your
conversation consult with [Nancy] for medical purposes
and diagnosis, you noticed that she had some physical
manifestations or marks on her body on her arms and
wrists, correct?
“[DOCTOR]: Yes, on her left forearm.
“[PROSECUTOR]: And pursuant to seeing that, you did
inquire of her as to what those were, correct?
“[DOCTOR]: Yes.
“[PROSECUTOR]: And she stated she denied having
any suicidal thoughts at that moment, correct?
“[DOCTOR]: Yes.
“[PROSECUTOR]: But she did say that she had concern
for her sisters, correct?
“[DOCTOR]: Yes.
“* * *
“[PROSECUTOR]: * * * [Nancy] also revealed to you
that she had told a cousin, correct?
“[DOCTOR]: She said she made a disclosure to her
paternal cousin.
-7-
“[PROSECUTOR]: Paternal cousin and who in turn then
revealed it to her paternal family and her grandmother,
correct?
“[DOCTOR]: Yes. She said it made its way to the
paternal grandmother.
“[PROSECUTOR]: At some point she revealed to you
that sometimes when the alleged abuse was happening
that her sisters would be in the room, correct?
“[DOCTOR]: Yes.
“* * *
“[PROSECUTOR]: And that in regards to her disclosure
to her family members, that her paternal grandmother and
her paternal aunt stated that it was just probably him
playing around how dads play, correct?
“[DOCTOR]: Yes, she made that statement.”
No further objections were made, and defense counsel did not cross-examine the
doctor.
C
The Testimony of Douglas Harris
Douglas Harris testified on defendant’s behalf, identifying himself as
defendant’s brother-in-law. During the course of the state’s cross-examination of
Mr. Harris, he was asked if defendant was ever left alone with defendant’s
children, and Mr. Harris replied that defendant was not. The prosecutor then asked
whether, prior to an earlier hearing in the case, Mr. Harris had given a statement to
-8-
defense counsel. At that point, defense counsel objected and a sidebar conference
ensued.
Defense counsel contended that, if the state was trying to impeach Mr.
Harris with a summary of his potential testimony which had been prepared by
defense counsel and provided to the prosecutor during discovery pursuant to Rule
16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure (the statement at issue), it
was not permissible because Mr. Harris did not prepare, review, or sign that
statement. Defense counsel expressly conceded that “[i]f they want to refresh
recollection, you can refresh with anything * * *.” The trial justice overruled the
objection, stating that they would “see what the witness says when the particular
concepts that are set forth in the statement are presented to the witness.” The
prosecutor then proceeded to question Mr. Harris, and no further objection was
made by defense counsel.3
Later in the state’s cross-examination of Mr. Harris, he was asked whether
or not he “remember[ed] telling [defense counsel] that [Nancy’s sister] came out to
the porch” during a particular conversation between Nancy and Mr. Harris. He
stated that he did not remember. The prosecutor asked whether looking at the
statement at issue would help him remember, to which question defense counsel
3
The defendant concedes in his brief before the Court that the just-described
statement at issue was only being used to refresh Mr. Harris’s recollection, and not
to impeach, the first time it was used in cross-examination. It is the second use of
that statement (which is described infra) that defendant contends was improper.
-9-
objected, reiterating his contention that the state could not use the statement at
issue to impeach Mr. Harris; defense counsel averred that the state was trying to
“impeach by omission * * *.” Again, defense counsel conceded that the state
could “attempt to refresh [the witness’s] memory,” but he objected to the statement
being used to impeach “if that were to happen.” The trial justice overruled the
objection and offered defense counsel a continuing objection, to which defense
counsel responded, “[W]e’ll see where it goes.” The prosecutor then asked Mr.
Harris if the statement at issue helped him remember if he talked to defense
counsel about Nancy’s sister coming onto the porch, and he stated that it was not in
the statement but that he “did talk about it.” Defense counsel did not object.
The defendant was ultimately found guilty by the jury on the one count
against him. After his motion for a new trial was denied, he was sentenced to
fifteen years, with six years to serve and nine years suspended, with probation; he
was also required to register as a sex offender. The defendant then filed a timely
appeal to this Court.
II
Standard of Review
We have stated that “[w]e review a trial justice’s admission of evidence
under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1240,
1247 (R.I. 2010). Under that standard, “[i]t is well established that this Court will
- 10 -
not disturb a trial justice’s ruling on an evidentiary issue unless that ruling
constitutes an abuse of the justice’s discretion that prejudices the complaining
party.” State v. Flori, 963 A.2d 932, 941 (R.I. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also State v. Gomez, 848 A.2d 221, 232 (R.I. 2004).
III
Analysis
A
The Testimony of Dr. Adewusi
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial justice “committed reversible
error when [he] allowed a Hasbro physician to vouch for the complaining witness
by corroborating her narrative statements unrelated to medical diagnosis or
treatment.” He takes specific issue with the testimony of Dr. Adewusi, which
indicated that Nancy told her that, in defendant’s words: (1) “the molestation
occurred when her sisters were in the room;” (2) “she feared for the safety of her
sisters;” (3) “she told her cousin who told her mother who told [Nancy’s]
grandmother [about the abuse];” and (4) “her grandmother replied [that] her father
was just playing games.” He further posits that that testimony was not merely
cumulative but also constituted improper bolstering which was “highly
inflammatory, prejudicial and unsupported by any other evidence.” He avers that
- 11 -
the testimony of Dr. Adewusi at issue had “no bearing on the question of medical
diagnosis or treatment.”
Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted.” R.I. R. Evid. 801(c). As a general rule, hearsay statements are
inadmissible; however, there are “myriad exceptions to the rule” including the
medical diagnosis or treatment exception with which we are concerned in this case.
State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172, 187 (R.I. 2014); State v. Gaspar, 982 A.2d 140, 151
(R.I. 2009). The rationale behind this exception is that “a person will presumably
be truthful to a physician from whom he expects to receive medical attention.”
State v. Pina, 455 A.2d 313, 315 (R.I. 1983). The medical diagnosis or treatment
exception provides that the following are exempt from the prohibition against the
use of hearsay:
“Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or
treatment and describing medical history, or past or
present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or
general character of the cause or external source thereof
insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment,
but not including statements made to a physician
consulted solely for the purposes of preparing for
litigation or obtaining testimony for trial.” R.I. R. Evid.
803(4).
In the course of applying the medical diagnosis or treatment exception, we
have stated that “[t]he test for determining admissibility hinge[s] on whether what
- 12 -
has been related by the patient will assist or is helpful in the diagnosis or treatment
of [the patient’s] ailment.” Watkins, 92 A.3d at 187 (quoting Gaspar, 982 A.2d at
151); see also State v. Ucero, 450 A.2d 809, 815 (R.I. 1982). “Statements that
narrate details unconnected with either diagnosis or treatment, however, are
inadmissible unless they fall under another hearsay exception.” Watkins, 92 A.3d
at 187 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pina, 455 A.2d at 315. We
have further opined that “[w]hen statements about causation enter the realm of
assigning fault, it is unlikely that the patient or the physician consider them related
to diagnosis or treatment.” Gaspar, 982 A.2d at 151; see also Pina, 455 A.2d at
315.
Having thoroughly reviewed Dr. Adewusi’s testimony as well as the other
evidence adduced at trial, we are of the decided opinion that, to the extent that
defendant’s contentions concerning Dr. Adewusi’s testimony were preserved, the
trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting Dr. Adewusi’s testimony with
respect to the four statements with which defendant takes issue. In the context of
this case, those statements were reasonably pertinent to Dr. Adewusi’s diagnosis
and treatment of Nancy.
We begin by noting that it is clear from the record that the prosecutor and
the trial justice both went out of their way to treat Dr. Adewusi’s testimony with
delicacy; great effort was taken to ensure that Dr. Adewusi’s testimony did not go
- 13 -
beyond that which is permitted under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception
to the hearsay rule and did not cross the line into impermissible bolstering. The
prosecutor elicited all of the testimony at issue by asking leading questions (see
Part I.B, supra), and the doctor’s testimony on this topic itself was very brief,
spanning only approximately three transcript pages.
A review of the record similarly makes clear that Nancy did not present to
Dr. Adewusi with merely physical injuries; she was also in need of treatment for
the psychological injuries that resulted from the abuse she had allegedly suffered.
Indeed, Nancy herself testified that she had been cutting herself, and Dr. Adewusi
testified to having noticed the resultant marks on Nancy’s forearm. What is more,
Dr. Adewusi testified that the purpose of gathering information from Nancy (or
from any other patient) was for medical diagnosis and treatment in order to allow
her to provide treatment recommendations, including whether or not the patient
“need[ed] to see a therapist urgently[.]”
We have been very clear that “a statement made to a treating physician is not
per se inadmissible merely because it involves the patient’s emotional state; when
an evaluation contains a psychological element as well as a physical one, those
statements, much like the physical evaluation, may be pertinent to diagnosis and
treatment.” Watkins, 92 A.3d at 188; see also Vallinoto v. DiSandro, 688 A.2d
830, 840-41 (R.I. 1997) (noting that the plaintiff was being treated for
- 14 -
psychological rather than physical injuries and holding that statements made by the
plaintiff to her “social worker regarding her sexual activity with [the defendant]
were directly relevant to the diagnosis of her mental state and the treatment that
she was receiving for her alleged mental anguish and would be admissible”).
It is true that the doctor’s testimony with respect to Nancy being concerned
for her sisters, that her sisters were in the room when some of the abuse occurred,
the fact that Nancy had disclosed the abuse to her father’s family, and her
grandmother’s reaction were all relevant to Nancy’s psychological, as opposed to
her physical, health. However, the record is clear that it was not merely Nancy’s
physical health that Dr. Adewusi was treating. Given Nancy’s history of self-harm
and the resultant importance of treating the effect on her mental health of the abuse
she purportedly suffered, we perceive no reversible error in the trial justice’s
determination that the statements at issue were “inextricably intertwined” with Dr.
Adewusi’s examination and with her need to obtain all the reasonably pertinent
information needed to treat Nancy.4
4
We further note that defendant’s contention that Dr. Adewusi’s testimony
constituted impermissible bolstering is without merit. Impermissible bolstering is
“what typically occurs when one witness offer[s] an opinion regarding the
truthfulness or accuracy of another witness’[s] testimony.” State v. Watkins, 92
A.3d 172, 189 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v.
Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467, 479 (R.I. 2010); see also State v. Ceppi, 91 A.3d 320,
332 (R.I. 2014) (stating that bolstering can also occur “[e]ven when a witness does
not literally state an opinion concerning the credibility of another witness but his or
- 15 -
What is more, even if one or more of the aspects of Dr. Adewusi’s testimony
that are at issue did not precisely fall within the medical diagnosis or treatment
exception to the hearsay rule, those statements were cumulative and harmless in
light of the other evidence adduced at trial.
“Cumulative evidence means [evidence] tending to prove the same point to
which other evidence has been offered.” State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022, 1032 (R.I.
2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have stated that “the admission of
hearsay evidence is not prejudicial when the evidence is merely cumulative and
when [the] defendant’s guilt is sufficiently established by proper evidence.” State
v. Robinson, 989 A.2d 965, 979 (R.I. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The test to be applied is “a retrospective one, administered at the close of all the
evidence to determine whether the admission of certain evidence was harmless in
light of all the evidence admitted on that point.” Watkins, 92 A.3d at 189 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
A review of the record in this case indicates that the four statements by Dr.
Adewusi with which defendant takes issue were also testified to independently by
her testimony would have the same substantive import”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Doctor Adewusi did not express a view one way or another about the
veracity of what Nancy told her; she merely relayed what Nancy had said. “We
have held that a medical professional simply reiterating a patient’s statement
without passing judgment on the accuracy or credibility thereof does not constitute
improper bolstering.” Watkins, 92 A.3d at 190.
- 16 -
Nancy. Nancy specifically testified about her concern for her sisters and about her
consciousness that she “didn’t know that maybe something like [what had
happened to her was] happening to them too * * *.” She further testified that her
sisters were in the same bedroom during a particular instance of abuse. She went
on to testify that she told her cousin about the abuse, who then told Nancy’s aunt
and grandmother. Nancy stated at trial that her grandmother’s reaction was to ask
her if she was “sure” that her father was not just “playing around * * *.” Nancy
was then subjected to a lengthy and thorough cross-examination, which
specifically touched on her sisters being in the room during one of the instances of
abuse, her disclosure of the abuse to her father’s family, and her grandmother’s
reaction. Thus, Dr. Adewusi’s short testimony with respect to various facts that
Nancy had provided to her in the course of her evaluation of Nancy was simply a
repetition of Nancy’s own lengthy testimony which was highly specific; and,
significantly, Dr. Adewusi did not opine as to the veracity vel non of Nancy’s
statements. In the opinion of this Court, it was cumulative evidence, the
admittance of which was harmless.5
5
Given our conclusion with respect to the applicability of the medical
diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule to Dr. Adewusi’s testimony at
issue we need not address any of the other hearsay exceptions discussed by the
parties.
- 17 -
B
The Testimony of Mr. Harris
With respect to the testimony of Mr. Harris, defendant avers on appeal that
“[t]he trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the State to impeach
Douglas Harris * * * with a statement he did not author, sign, review, or even
know existed at the time of trial.” He further posits that “the State certainly did not
clarify – in any meaningful way – for the jury that it was not Mr. Harris’s actual
statement.”
After thoroughly reviewing the transcript and the parties’ arguments, the
Court is convinced that defendant’s contentions with respect to the cross-
examination of Mr. Harris are waived. See State v. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482, 493 (R.I.
2020) (“[T]he raise-or-waive rule is a fundamental principle in this state that is
staunchly adhered to by this Court[;] * * * a litigant cannot raise an objection or
advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Defense counsel objected to the statement at
issue being used to impeach Mr. Harris “if that were to happen,” and then the trial
justice offered counsel a continuing objection. He responded, “we’ll see where it
goes,” and he did not object thereafter. Defense counsel seems to have merely
raised an objection to the possibility that the statement at issue might be used to
impeach Mr. Harris at some point in the future, but he then did not articulate any
- 18 -
objection to the ensuing questions which Mr. Harris was actually asked with
respect to the statement at issue. See State v. Tejeda, 171 A.3d 983, 1001 (R.I.
2017) (“[A] failure to object in the vital context of the trial itself * * * [constitutes]
a waiver of the evidentiary objection and [is] therefore an issue that may not be
raised on appeal.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
What is more, it is equally clear to this Court after reviewing the transcript
that, even if this contention were properly before us, the statement at issue was not
used for the purpose of impeachment; rather, it was used merely to refresh Mr.
Harris’s recollection—an entirely permissible use. See State v. Souza, 708 A.2d
899, 903 (R.I. 1998) (“When attempting to refresh a witness’s memory, the
examining attorney need not use a document that has been written either by the
witness or under his or her direction. Rather, Rule 612 [of the Rhode Island Rules
of Evidence] merely refers to using a writing to refresh a witness’s memory for the
purpose of testifying.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v.
Santiago, 81 A.3d 1136, 1141 (R.I. 2014) (“It is well settled that, when a party
refreshes a witness’s recollection, the witness’s present memory of the event,
rather than the memorandum used to revive the memory, stands as the evidence.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we are unable to perceive any abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial justice with respect to Dr. Adewusi’s testimony or Mr. Harris’s testimony.
- 19 -
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the
Superior Court. The record may be returned to that tribunal.
- 20 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Title of Case State v. Juan P. Benitez.
No. 2018-240-C.A.
Case Number
(P2/14-2095A)
Date Opinion Filed January 25, 2022
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice William P. Robinson III
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice William E. Carnes, Jr.
For State:
Virginia M. McGinn
Attorney(s) on Appeal Department of Attorney General
For Defendant:
Gary G. Pelletier, Esq.
SU-CMS-02A (revised June 2020)