United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992 · Evidence
983 F.2d 818 (8th Cir. 1992)
Updated
EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHearsaySixth Amendmentchild sexual abusemedical diagnosis or treatmentRule 803(4)particularized guarantees of trustworthiness
Facts
Ring was convicted in Minnesota state court of four counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving two minors. As to his daughter, C.R., the state trial court found her incompetent to testify but admitted two videotaped statements: one made to Dr. Carolyn Levitt and one made to social worker Luann Heim. The Levitt interview occurred more than a month after the alleged abuse and was admitted under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 803(4). The Heim interview was admitted under a Minnesota child-hearsay statute requiring reliability, unavailability or testimony, and corroborative evidence.
Issue
Whether admission of C.R.'s two videotaped out-of-court statements—one to a doctor and one to a social worker—violated Ring's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when C.R. did not testify at trial.
Rule
Under the Confrontation Clause, hearsay is admissible only if it falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or is supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness must be assessed from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, and corroborative evidence of the alleged act or the defendant's opportunity to commit it may not be used to establish reliability. A statement to a physician does not automatically fall within the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception when the reliability rationale for that exception is absent.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Omaha, four-year-old Lily Torres was taken by her father to Dr. Nina Mercer six weeks after an alleged assault. The visit was arranged after a family dispute, and the record shows no one told Lily that Mercer was a doctor or that the interview related to treatment; the prosecution offers Lily’s videotaped answers under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception after Lily is found incompetent to testify.
Under the majority’s Confrontation Clause analysis, is admission of Lily’s videotaped statement most likely proper?
Explanation. The majority held that a statement to a physician is not automatically admissible under the Confrontation Clause merely because a doctor conducted the interview. The firmly rooted status of the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception depends on its reliability rationale: the declarant’s selfish motive to tell the truth in order to obtain treatment. Where the child did not seek treatment and there is no evidence she even knew she was speaking to a doctor, that rationale is absent, so the statement does not qualify on that basis.