Anderson v. State

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that a child-abuse medical report prepared for a detective was inadmissible hearsay because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation and did not qualify under the business-records or medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exceptions. The court further held that admitting the report was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State relied on it for expert testimony and closing argument. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. Dr. Boos's report was inadmissible hearsay because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation and did not qualify under either the business-records exception or the exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
2. The report could not be admitted merely because Dr. Shukat was available for cross-examination or because Dr. Boos could have used it to refresh his recollection; the report would have remained inadmissible absent an applicable evidentiary basis such as an opening-the-door theory.
3. The erroneous admission of Dr. Boos's report was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Boos's report to Detective Carin when Dr. Boos did not testify.
2. Whether the report was admissible under the business-records exception or the exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
3. Whether admission of the report was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded