Patricia Cree v. Kim Allen Hatcher, M.D.
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15565, 969 F.2d 34 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2), a prior conviction is only admissible to impeach a witness's credibility if the statutory elements of the crime involve dishonesty or false statement; a conviction for willful failure to file a federal income tax return does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- Patricia Cree was a patient of Dr. Kim Allen Hatcher.
- On February 3, 1986, Dr. Hatcher performed a gynecological examination and a Pap test on Cree after she complained of discomfort and bleeding.
- On February 12, 1986, Cree was informed her Pap test was Class II, indicating benign atypia, and Dr. Hatcher requested she return in six months for another test.
- Cree moved away and did not return for the subsequent examination with Dr. Hatcher.
- In December 1986, a different physician examined Cree and her Pap smear was found to be Class IV, which strongly suggests the presence of cancer.
- On January 22, 1987, a specialist diagnosed Cree with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix.
- Six days after her diagnosis, Cree underwent a radical hysterectomy.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Cree sued Dr. Kim Allen Hatcher for medical malpractice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- The first trial resulted in a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict.
- During a second trial, the district court denied Cree's motion in limine to exclude evidence of her expert witness's prior misdemeanor conviction for failure to file a tax return.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Dr. Hatcher.
- Cree filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- Cree, as appellant, appealed the denial of her motion for a new trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the misdemeanor of willful failure to file a federal income tax return constitute a crime involving 'dishonesty or false statement' under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2), making it automatically admissible for witness impeachment?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollak, J.
No, the misdemeanor of willful failure to file a federal income tax return is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2). Rule 609(a)(2) must be interpreted narrowly to include only crimes in the nature of 'crimen falsi,' which involve some element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification that bears on a witness's propensity to testify truthfully. The statutory elements of willful failure to file a tax return require only a voluntary and deliberate intent to violate the law, not an intent to defraud or deceive the government. Therefore, evidence of such a conviction is not automatically admissible to impeach a witness, and its admission in this case was a prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision narrows the application of FRE 609(a)(2) within the Third Circuit and creates a split with other circuits that had permitted impeachment based on this conviction. The court establishes a strict, element-based test, holding that the focus must be on the statutory definition of the crime, not the specific conduct of the defendant or the general reprehensibility of the act. This ruling provides greater protection to witnesses, particularly experts, by preventing their credibility from being attacked with prior convictions that do not directly implicate their character for truthfulness.
