UNITED STATES V. IRON SHELL
633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1980)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Iron Shell (D) appealed from a conviction of assault with intent to
commit rape.
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 a 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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment