United States v. Iron Shell
633 F.2d 77 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4), statements made by a patient to a physician describing the general character or cause of an injury are admissible hearsay if the declarant's motive is consistent with seeking treatment and it is reasonable for the physician to rely on the information for diagnosis or treatment.
Facts:
- On July 24, 1979, John Louis Iron Shell consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and returned to the home where he was staying on the Rosebud Indian Reservation.
- Becoming angry upon learning his girlfriend was not there, Iron Shell left the house.
- Two teenage witnesses, Mike Dillon and Steve Mizner, saw Iron Shell approach Lucy, a nine-year-old girl, grab her, and pull her into some tall bushes.
- A neighbor, Mae Small Bear, investigated after hearing Lucy crying and saw her lying on her back with her jeans pulled down to her ankles, with Iron Shell lying beside her.
- When Small Bear approached, Iron Shell ran away.
- Shortly after, another individual, Pam Lunderman, saw Lucy emerge from the bushes crying, pulling up her pants, and stating, "that guy tried to take my pants off."
- Lucy was later examined by Dr. Mark Hopkins, to whom she described the assault, stating that a man had dragged her into the bushes, removed her clothes, and tried to force something into her vagina.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government prosecuted John Louis Iron Shell in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
- The indictment charged Iron Shell with assault with intent to commit rape under the Major Crimes Act.
- A jury found Iron Shell guilty of the charged offense.
- The district court judge sentenced Iron Shell to imprisonment for seventeen years and six months.
- Iron Shell (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) permit a physician to testify about a child sexual assault victim's statements describing the general character of the cause of her injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephenson, J.
Yes. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) when they describe the inception or cause of an injury and are reasonably pertinent to that diagnosis or treatment. The court applies a two-part test: first, the declarant's motive must be consistent with the purpose of the rule (seeking treatment), and second, it must be reasonable for the physician to rely on the information. Here, the nine-year-old victim's statements to Dr. Hopkins about what happened were made to promote treatment, not to identify the perpetrator for legal purposes. The information was pertinent because it helped the physician guide his examination, even if the exam would have been largely the same without it. The court also held that statements made to Officer Marshall shortly after the event were admissible as excited utterances under Rule 803(2) and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding lesser included offenses.
Dissenting - Bright, J.
No, the conviction should be reversed. The trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault by striking, beating, or wounding (common law battery). Because the government's evidence showed an actual physical battery, and the defendant's specific intent to commit rape was in dispute due to his intoxication, the jury should have been given the option to convict on the lesser offense. The simple assault instruction provided did not fit the undisputed facts of a physical attack and therefore did not afford the jury a proper choice, prejudicing the defendant.
Concurring - Heaney, J.
Yes, the conviction should be affirmed. The evidence of assault with intent to commit rape was so strong that the trial court was not required to submit a jury instruction for either simple assault or assault by striking, beating, or wounding. Therefore, any potential error in the jury instructions was harmless.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule (FRE 803(4)) in the context of child sexual assault. By establishing a two-part test focused on the declarant's motive and the physician's reasonable reliance, the court provides a framework that favors the admission of a child's account of an assault. This precedent is crucial for prosecutors in cases where young victims are unable or unwilling to testify fully at trial, allowing their initial, reliable statements to a doctor to be presented as substantive evidence. The opinion carefully distinguishes between admissible statements about the cause of injury ('what happened') and generally inadmissible statements about fault or identity ('who did it').
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Iron Shell