State v. Moen

786 P.2d 111 (Or. 1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The bodies of Hazel Chatfield and Judith Moen were found in Hazel's residence. The police officers and crime laboratory technicians found that some areas of the house had been ransacked, but discounted theories of burglary because a portable television and stereo were not taken. No footprints were found in soft soil outside what the officers otherwise might have treated as a suspected entry point. The spent bullets from what appeared to be the fatal gunshots were recovered, and all three had eight lands and grooves with a right-hand twist and appeared to have been fired from a .38 caliber revolver. P's theory was that D had killed Judith Moen during a domestic quarrel and that he had killed Hazel Chatfield when she became involved in the dispute. At trial, P introduced evidence from Dr. Daniel Mulkey, who had recently treated Hazel Chatfield. Chatfield complained of depression and despondency since her daughter and D had moved into her home. She appeared agitated, anxious, nervous, very tearful, and crying. Dr. Mulkey attempted to treat her for a potentially fatal lesion but, because of her situation at home, was unable to convince her that she needed treatment. He testified that Chatfield told him that she was upset about her daughter and son-in-law, that her son-in-law had been physically abusive to her daughter, and that 'she felt he might kill them both.' He recommended that D be removed from the home. The trial court admitted this evidence under the medical diagnosis exception to hearsay. D was convicted and appealed. D claims that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Daniel Davis Mulkey to recite statements of Hazel Chatfield.