State v. Robinson
2006 WL 2036458, 2006 Minn. LEXIS 439, 718 N.W.2d 400 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A recanting witness's prior inconsistent statements may be admissible as substantive evidence under the residual hearsay exception if a totality of the circumstances analysis indicates the statements possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to other established hearsay exceptions.
Facts:
- F.T. and Andre Robinson are parents to two children and had a past romantic relationship.
- On April 12, 2003, after an argument with Robinson, F.T. went to Abbott Northwestern Hospital for injuries, including a severe blowout fracture to her eye orbit.
- F.T. told a treating nurse that Robinson, the father of her children, had hit her in the eye with an open hand.
- F.T. told a second nurse practitioner that she had been assaulted and slapped in the face.
- Approximately 10 days later, F.T. visited the Domestic Abuse Service Center to get information about obtaining an order for protection against Robinson.
- About a month after the incident, upon learning Robinson was being charged, F.T. contacted the prosecutor and recanted her story.
- F.T. claimed her eye was injured accidentally when Robinson opened a bathroom door and it struck her in the face.
- F.T. resumed living with Robinson after the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota charged Andre Robinson with third-degree assault in a state trial court.
- At a pretrial hearing, the trial court ruled that the victim F.T.'s statements to nurses were admissible as substantive evidence under the medical diagnosis hearsay exception, but not under the residual hearsay exception.
- Following a trial, a jury found Robinson guilty of third-degree assault.
- Robinson, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding the statements were not admissible under the medical diagnosis exception but were admissible under the residual hearsay exception and as nonhearsay statements of identification.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted Robinson's petition for review.
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 residual hearsay exception permit the substantive admission of a domestic abuse victim's prior inconsistent statements to medical personnel identifying her abuser when the victim recants her accusation at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Hanson, J.
Yes. The residual hearsay exception permits the substantive admission of a domestic abuse victim's prior inconsistent statements identifying her abuser when the victim recants at trial, provided the statements have sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness under a totality of the circumstances analysis. The court rejected the applicability of the medical diagnosis exception (Minn. R. Evid. 803(4)) on this record, declining to adopt a categorical rule that an abuser's identity is always pertinent to treatment without a sufficient evidentiary foundation. The court also held that the nonhearsay statement of identification exception (Minn. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(C)) does not apply to an 'accusation' against a known person, but only to an 'identification' of a previously unknown offender. However, the statements were admissible under the residual hearsay exception (Minn. R. Evid. 803(24)). Because F.T. testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause did not bar consideration of corroborating evidence in assessing trustworthiness. The court found the statements trustworthy based on a totality of the circumstances, including that F.T. volunteered the statements, they were consistent, she lacked a motive to lie to the nurses, her recantation was discredited by medical evidence and motivated by reconciliation, and her initial account was corroborated by other evidence.
Concurring - Anderson, R. A., C.J.
Yes, but the statements were admissible under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule (Minn. R. Evid. 803(4)), making an analysis of the other exceptions unnecessary. The trial court's decision should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion, not de novo. The identity of an abuser in a domestic violence situation is reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment, as it informs the treatment of psychological and emotional trauma and is necessary for preventing future harm. This reasoning is consistent with precedent in child abuse cases, and there is no principled reason to distinguish domestic physical abuse from other forms of familial abuse where identity is deemed relevant to treatment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary rules for admitting a domestic violence victim's recanted statements in Minnesota. By rejecting a categorical rule under the medical diagnosis exception, the court requires prosecutors to lay a specific evidentiary foundation showing why an abuser's identity is pertinent to treatment in a given case. More significantly, the court provides a strong endorsement for using the residual hearsay exception in these situations, establishing that corroborating evidence can be used to assess a statement's trustworthiness when the declarant testifies. This gives prosecutors a viable path to introduce crucial evidence and secure convictions even when victims, for various reasons, recant their initial accusations on the stand.
