Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Iron Shell (D) assaulted a nine-year-old girl. D conceded that he had assaulted the girl, but the issue at trial concerned the nature of the assault and D's intent. Immediately after the incident, the girl had been examined by Dr. Mark Hopkins. During trial, the Dr. testified as to what the girl had told him regarding the incident about how she was drug into the bushes, her clothes were removed and that a man had tried to force something in her vagina. D objected to this evidence. The Dr. also testified about the general condition of the girl and that her hymen was intact and no sperm was located. D was convicted and appealed. D argues that the questions asked by Dr. Hopkins and the information received in response to those questions were not 'reasonably pertinent' to diagnosis or treatment. D stresses Dr. Hopkins' question in which he asked Lucy whether the man had taken her clothes off and suggests that this was asked by one in the role of an investigator, seeking to solve the crime, rather than a doctor treating or diagnosing a patient. D also asserts that the doctor's examination would have been the same whether or not this extra information had been received. D argues that this point supports his claim that the questions were not pertinent to treatment or diagnosis because they had no effect on the doctor's examination. D urges that the doctor was employed for the specific purpose of qualifying as an expert witness and as such his testimony should be more suspect.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co