Niupulusu v American Samoa Government [2004] ASHC 3; 8 ASR3d 68 (28 June 2004)

OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2004)

NE'EMIA NIUPULUSU,
Defendant/Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT,
Appellee.

High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division

AP No. 02-02

June 28, 2004

[1] Under A.S.C.A. § 46.1303, the court may order a mental examination of a defendant upon motion of the defendant or the government, or upon the court's own motion, at any time before judgment. A.S.C.A. § 46.1304(b) states: "Unless otherwise specified by the court, the scope of the examination pertains to whether: (1) the defendant is mentally competent to stand trial; and (2) the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the criminal act charged." Under American Samoa law, persons are presumed to be sane and mentally competent. A.S.C.A. § 46.1306(a).

[2] Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Even where the ruling was incorrect, the conviction will not be reversed unless a substantial right of the party is affected. T.C.R.Ev. 103(a).

[3] Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. T.C.R.Ev. 801(c). However, a statement is not hearsay where it is "made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment." T.C.R.Ev. 803(4).

[4] Although the identity of the perpetrator generally does not fit within the hearsay exception, a child victim's statements about the identity of the perpetrator are admissible under the medical treatment exception when they are made for the purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment. Because sexual abuse can inflict psychological and emotional injuries, as well as physical injury, the course of treatment may be dictated by whether the perpetrator is a relative of the victim.

[5] Sufficient evidence exists if, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury's verdict, a reasonable jury could have found all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice, GOODWIN,* Acting Associate Justice, TASHIMA,** Acting Associate Justice, LOGOAI, Chief Associate Judge, and TAPOPO, Associate Judge.
__________________________________________
* Honorable Alfred T. Goodwin, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, serving by designation of the Secretary of Interior.