United States v. Tome - 61 F.3d 1446 (10th Cir. 1995)

Rule:

Fed. R. Evid. 803(24) provides that a statement not specifically covered by any of the other hearsay exceptions, but which has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

Facts:

Defendant Matthew Wayne Tome was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(A). He sought review of his conviction, challenging the admissibility of the hearsay statements relayed by six witnesses. Each witness related out-of-court statements made by the child victim. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the testimony of the witnesses was admissible because it was not hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. According to the appellate court, even though the victim made the statements after her alleged motive to fabricate had arisen, the statements were prior consistent statements admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). Id. at 351. The Supreme Court reversed the court's decision and remanded the matter for further review of the admissibility of the statements.

Issue:

Was the testimony of the witnesses proffered by the government admissible as evidence against defendant?

Answer:

No, except with respect to the testimony of the pediatricians.

Conclusion:

On remand, the appellate court held that the testimony by three pediatricians, who stated that the victim told them that defendant was her assailant, was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) because it was a domestic sexual abuse case and, under such circumstances, defendant's identity was reasonably pertinent to the proper treatment of the victim. However, the court reversed and remanded defendant's conviction because the district court erroneously admitted hearsay statements by a social worker, the victim's babysitter, and the victim's mother, that did not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule or the residual exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803(24) and the admission of the statements was not harmless.