## Facts

- The complainant told Maurice Benston to move out of her apartment; she alleged he assaulted and choked her using a scarf and a belt.
- She called 911; police arrested Benston, and she was taken to a hospital.
- Hospital records diagnosed “domestic violence” and “asphyxiation” and included that Benston was her former boyfriend, details of strangulation, and that a “safety plan” was formulated.
- The trial court redacted portions referring to a “history of abuse” and a prior complaint, but allowed the domestic-violence references, relationship information, weapons used, and safety-plan entries.
- After the incident, the complainant obtained an order of protection that Benston allegedly violated multiple times.
- Benston was charged with attempted murder and other offenses; the jury acquitted him of attempted murder but convicted him of multiple counts including assault, attempted assault, weapon possession, contempt, witness intimidation, aggravated harassment, and harassment.
- He received an aggregate sentence of 5½ years’ imprisonment as a second felony offender.

## Issues

1. Whether entries in medical records describing “domestic violence,” identifying the assailant as a former boyfriend, and documenting a safety plan were admissible under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception.
2. Whether those entries unfairly suggested prior uncharged abuse and should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial.
3. Whether proof of a former romantic relationship was sufficient to support treating the incident as “domestic violence” for evidentiary purposes.
4. Whether limiting repetitive cross-examination and refusing to permit a selectively redacted 911 recording (excluding parole references) was an abuse of discretion or violated confrontation rights.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held the trial court properly admitted limited medical-record references to domestic violence, the former-boyfriend relationship, and a safety plan because they related to diagnosis and treatment, including psychosocial care.
- The court held the admitted references did not necessarily imply a history of abuse, especially given the redactions of explicitly historical allegations.
- The court left undisturbed the lower court’s conclusion that the trial court acted within its discretion in limiting repetitive cross-examination and in declining to allow a misleadingly edited 911 recording.

## Legal Principles

- Statements in medical records may be admitted under the diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception when made for, and reasonably related to, medical care, including safety assessment and social-work intervention.
- In domestic-violence cases, identifying the nature of the violence and the assailant’s relationship to the patient can be treatment-related when it affects medical and psychosocial interventions (e.g., risk counseling and safety planning).
- References to “domestic violence” and a safety plan are not, by themselves, equivalent to proof of a prior pattern of abuse; targeted redaction can reduce unfair prejudice while preserving treatment-related material.
- Trial courts may curb repetitious cross-examination and may exclude selectively edited recordings when the edits risk misleading the jury about context; such rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are not automatically confrontation violations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of limited domestic-violence and safety-planning information in hospital records as treatment-related hearsay and found no reversible prejudice or evidentiary error in the challenged trial rulings, leaving the convictions intact.


People v. Benston, 15 N.Y.3d 610 (N.Y. 2010)