United States v. Tome
61 F.3d 1446 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child victim's hearsay statements identifying a family member as an abuser are admissible under the medical diagnosis exception (Fed. R. Evid. 803(4)) when reasonably pertinent to a physician's treatment. However, such statements lack sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Fed. R. Evid. 803(24)) if made long after the alleged events and after a motive to fabricate has arisen.
Facts:
- Matthew Wayne Tome was the father of the child victim, A.T.
- More than a year after the alleged abuse, while a custody dispute was ongoing between her parents, A.T. lived with her mother.
- On August 22, 1990, A.T. spontaneously told her babysitter, Lisa Rocha, that she did not want to return to her father because "he gets drunk and he thinks I'm his wife."
- A few days later, A.T. provided a more detailed account of the abuse to Rocha, which A.T.'s mother, Beverly Padilla, overheard.
- On August 29, 1990, A.T. gave a detailed account of the alleged abuse to Kae Ecklebarger, a Child Protection Services caseworker, sometimes using anatomically correct dolls.
- In September and October 1990, A.T. was examined by three pediatricians: Dr. Karen Kuper, Dr. Laura Reich, and Dr. Jean Spiegel.
- During these examinations, A.T. made statements to the doctors identifying her father as the abuser and describing where on her body she had been touched.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the United States District Court (trial court) convicted Matthew Wayne Tome of aggravated sexual abuse.
- Tome appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit initially affirmed the conviction, holding that the hearsay statements were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) as prior consistent statements.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari, reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, and ruled that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) requires that statements be made before any motive to fabricate arises.
- The case was then remanded to the Tenth Circuit for further proceedings to determine if the statements were admissible on other grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the hearsay exceptions for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment (Rule 803(4)) or the residual exception (Rule 803(24)) permit the admission of a child sexual abuse victim's out-of-court statements when those statements were made to doctors, a social worker, and a babysitter more than a year after the alleged abuse and during a parental custody dispute?
Opinions:
Majority - Tacha, J.
Partially. A child victim's statements made to physicians for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment that identify a household member as an abuser are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4), but statements made to a social worker or babysitter that lack sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness are not admissible under the residual exception, Rule 803(24). The court reasoned that under the precedent of United States v. Joe, the identity of an abuser in a domestic sexual abuse case is 'reasonably pertinent' to proper medical and psychological treatment, making A.T.'s statements to the three doctors admissible under Rule 803(4). However, the statements to the social worker, babysitter, and mother failed the test for the residual exception. Applying factors from Idaho v. Wright, the court found the circumstances equivocal; while the statements were detailed, they were not spontaneous, were made over a year after the abuse, and occurred when A.T. had a motive to fabricate due to the custody dispute. Because the erroneously admitted testimony was the most detailed and compelling evidence of abuse presented, the error was not harmless, requiring reversal of the conviction.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Holloway, J.
No. None of the out-of-court statements were admissible. This opinion concurs with the majority's conclusion that the statements to the social worker, babysitter, and mother were inadmissible hearsay and that their admission was not harmless error. However, it dissents from the conclusion that the statements to the doctors were admissible under Rule 803(4). The rationale for this exception is the patient's 'selfish motive' to be truthful to receive effective medical care. For this rationale to apply, the declarant must understand that truthful information is necessary for proper treatment. The record contains no evidence that the child, A.T. (aged 4-6), possessed such an understanding, thus removing the guarantee of trustworthiness that underpins the exception.
Analysis:
This decision refines the boundaries of key hearsay exceptions in child abuse prosecutions within the Tenth Circuit. It reinforces that an abuser's identity is pertinent to diagnosis under Rule 803(4) in domestic abuse cases, but the dissent introduces a significant potential limitation requiring proof of the child's subjective understanding of the medical context. The court's strict application of the residual exception test from Idaho v. Wright signals that statements made long after the fact or amid custody disputes face a high bar for admission. This ruling underscores the judiciary's caution in admitting hearsay, especially when it is highly prejudicial and potentially tainted by a motive to fabricate.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Tome