State v. Moen
786 P.2d 111 (Or. 1990) (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A declarant's statement to a physician identifying a specific person as the cause of the declarant's psychological condition and expressing fear of future harm from that person is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment (OEC 803(4)).
Facts:
- Hazel Chatfield’s daughter, Judith Moen, and her son-in-law, defendant Ronald Moen, moved into Chatfield's home.
- On February 11 and March 11, 1986, Chatfield saw her physician, Dr. Mulkey, complaining of severe depression and anxiety which she attributed to her daughter and son-in-law living with her.
- During the March 11 visit, Chatfield told Dr. Mulkey that Ronald Moen had been physically abusive to her daughter and stated that 'she felt he might kill them both.'
- In mid-February 1986, during an altercation with Judith Moen, Ronald Moen retrieved a shotgun from his car and threatened to kill Judith and her son.
- A former husband of Judith Moen testified that Ronald Moen had previously stated, 'I’m finally going to get rid of the bitch one way or the other.'
- On the evening of March 12, 1986, Ronald Moen was seen with Judith Moen at a local restaurant.
- On March 14, 1986, the bodies of Hazel Chatfield and Judith Moen were discovered in Chatfield's residence, both having died from gunshot wounds to the head.
- After the crime, police observed a mark on Ronald Moen's hand, which a forensic dentist concluded was a human bite mark consistent with Hazel Chatfield's teeth.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Oregon prosecuted Ronald Moen in the Marion County Circuit Court (trial court).
- A grand jury returned an indictment charging Moen with two counts of aggravated murder.
- At trial, the prosecution offered the testimony of Dr. Mulkey regarding statements made by victim Hazel Chatfield. The defense objected, arguing the statements were inadmissible hearsay and violated the defendant's confrontation rights.
- The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the testimony.
- The jury found Moen guilty of aggravated murder.
- After a separate penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict for the death sentence.
- Moen appealed his conviction and sentence directly to the Supreme Court of Oregon, the state's highest court.
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 a homicide victim's statement to her physician, made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment of her depression and identifying her son-in-law as the source of her fear and stating she believed he might kill her, fall within the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under OEC 803(4)?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes. A patient's statement to a physician identifying the source of a medical condition is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, even if it attributes fault. The court determined that Hazel Chatfield's statements to Dr. Mulkey met the three requirements of OEC 803(4): 1) they were made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment of her situational depression; 2) they described the 'inception or general character of the cause' of her condition; and 3) they were 'reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.' The court reasoned that identifying the defendant as the ongoing cause of her severe depression was crucial for Dr. Mulkey to make an accurate diagnosis and prescribe a course of treatment, which included recommending the defendant's removal from the home. The court also held the statement would be admissible as an 'excited utterance' and that its admission did not violate the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights because the medical diagnosis exception is 'firmly rooted' and thus carries adequate indicia of reliability.
Dissenting - Fadeley, J.
No. The victim's statement should not have been admitted because it was a prediction of future criminal conduct, not a statement about past or present conditions for the purpose of treatment. The dissent argued that the reliability underlying the OEC 803(4) exception—the patient's motive to be truthful to receive effective medical care—does not apply to a statement about what another person might do in the future. Furthermore, the statement was an accusation of fault that is ordinarily excluded under the rule. The dissent also rejected the majority's alternative 'excited utterance' theory, noting the statement was made over three weeks after the startling event (the shotgun incident), which is too long a time lapse to ensure the spontaneity required by that exception. The admission of such a powerfully prejudicial statement, which the defendant could not challenge through cross-examination, was reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Oregon law. By holding that identifying the person causing psychological trauma is 'reasonably pertinent to treatment,' the court allows for the admission of statements that are both accusatory and predictive. This precedent is particularly impactful in domestic violence and homicide cases, where the victim is often unavailable to testify, making their prior statements to doctors, counselors, or other medical professionals a critical piece of evidence. The ruling aligns Oregon's interpretation with a federal trend that recognizes the therapeutic importance of identifying an abuser, extending the logic beyond child abuse cases to conflicts between adults.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Moen