State v. Stahl

Supreme Court of Ohio · 2006 · Evidence

111 Ohio St. 3d 186 (2006)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseTestimonial vs. nontestimonial hearsayStatements for medical diagnosis or treatmentCrawfordtestimonial statementsnontestimonial hearsaymedical examination

Facts

After alleging that James Stahl orally raped her, Ann Mazurek gave a detailed statement to a police officer, who then transported her to the DOVE unit at St. Thomas Hospital for examination. Before the exam, Mazurek signed a consent form authorizing release of evidence and information to law enforcement, and during the exam nurse practitioner Jenifer Markowitz took a medical and incident history in the presence of the officer, who did not participate. Markowitz then performed a physical examination and collected forensic evidence, including oral swabs, nail scrapings, photographs, and a napkin. Mazurek later died before trial, and Stahl sought to exclude her statements to Markowitz on Confrontation Clause grounds.

Issue

Whether a rape victim's statement to a nurse practitioner during a hospital DOVE-unit examination identifying the alleged assailant is testimonial under Crawford and therefore inadmissible absent cross-examination, or instead nontestimonial because it was made in the course of medical diagnosis and treatment.

Rule

For Confrontation Clause purposes, a testimonial statement includes one made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. In applying that test, courts should focus on the declarant's expectations at the time of the statement; the questioner's intent matters only insofar as it could affect a reasonable declarant's expectations. Statements made to a medical professional for purposes of receiving medical treatment or diagnosis are not included within Crawford's minimum category of testimonial statements.

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 Columbus, Nora Bennett reported an assault to hospital security and was then examined in a special trauma clinic by nurse practitioner Leah Moreno. During the exam, Moreno asked who had injured Nora so she could assess disease exposure and discharge safety, while also collecting swabs and photographs for a possible criminal case.

If Nora dies before trial and the prosecution offers Moreno's testimony repeating Nora's identification of the assailant, how should the court rule under the Sixth Amendment?

Explanation. The majority adopted the objective-witness test: a statement is testimonial if made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe it would be available for later trial use. Courts focus on the declarant's expectations at the time of speaking. Statements made to medical professionals for purposes of receiving diagnosis or treatment are not within Crawford's minimum category of testimonial statements, and a forensic component does not by itself change that where the medical function remains primary.