State v. Reidhead

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2 · 1985 · Evidence

146 Ariz. 314 (Ct. App. 1985)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayMedical diagnosis or treatment exceptionConfrontationRule 803(4)hearsay exceptionstatements for medical diagnosis or treatmentfault statements

Facts

After appellant brought his four-year-old son to an urgent care center for a broken arm, Dr. Buford observed a slap mark on the child's face and a mark on his chest. Appellant told Dr. Buford that he had slapped the child and that the child then fell off the porch, but both Dr. Buford and Dr. Dansky testified that the injuries were not consistent with a fall from a porch. Over objection, Dr. Dansky testified that the child told her, "Daddy twisted my arm." The child and his mother were not available for trial, and the record showed no efforts made to locate them; the state's witnesses were only the doctors and a detective who interviewed appellant.

Issue

Whether the child's out-of-court statement to Dr. Dansky identifying his father as the person who twisted his arm was admissible under Rule 803(4) as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. If not, whether admission of that statement was harmless.

Rule

Under Rule 803(4), statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment are admissible only insofar as they are reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. Statements concerning what happened may be pertinent, but statements as to fault or identity of the assailant ordinarily are not; thus, a statement identifying who caused the injury is inadmissible when that identification is not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, six-year-old Nora Kim was taken to a clinic for a fractured wrist. During the exam, Nora told Dr. Elena Cruz, "My mom's boyfriend squeezed my wrist until it snapped." At trial, the prosecution offers Dr. Cruz's testimony repeating that statement, and there is no showing that the identity of the person mattered to the medical care provided.

Is the entire statement admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, Rule 803(4) admits only statements reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. Statements describing what happened may qualify, but statements assigning fault or identifying the assailant ordinarily do not. Here, the identity of the person who squeezed the wrist was not shown to be pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment, so that part is inadmissible.