Blake v. State
933 P.2d 474 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A victim's statement to a physician identifying the perpetrator in a sexual abuse case is admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule (W.R.E. 803(4)) and does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, as this is a firmly-rooted hearsay exception.
Facts:
- David Alfred Blake was the stepfather of a sixteen-year-old girl.
- Blake forcibly subjected his stepdaughter to sexual intercourse numerous times over a period of several years.
- Following a report of sexual abuse, an investigator and a sheriff's officer interviewed the victim.
- The victim was transported to a hospital emergency room for a medical examination.
- During the examination, the victim told the treating physician, Dr. Mary Bowers, that her stepfather, Blake, was the person who had assaulted her.
- Later the same day, Blake confessed to law enforcement that he had sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter for the past three to four years.
- Blake reviewed and signed a typed statement embodying his confession.
Procedural Posture:
- David Alfred Blake was charged in a Wyoming district court (trial court) with two counts of second-degree sexual assault.
- At trial, the victim did not testify.
- The trial court, over a continuing objection by defense counsel, admitted the testimony of Dr. Mary Bowers, which included the victim's statements identifying Blake as the perpetrator, under the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment (W.R.E. 803(4)).
- A jury found Blake guilty on both counts.
- Blake (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a victim's out-of-court statements to a treating physician identifying her stepfather as the perpetrator, pursuant to the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the victim does not testify at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Lehman, Justice.
No, the admission of the victim's statements does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment that identify a perpetrator in a child sexual abuse case are admissible under the firmly-rooted hearsay exception in W.R.E. 803(4) when they satisfy a two-part test. First, the declarant's motive must be consistent with the purpose of promoting treatment, and second, the content must be reasonably relied on by a physician for treatment. Here, Dr. Bowers testified that knowing the assailant's identity, especially in cases of intrafamilial abuse, is important for diagnosis and determining the scope of treatment for both physical and emotional trauma. Because the statements fall within a firmly-rooted hearsay exception, they carry sufficient guarantees of reliability to satisfy the Confrontation Clause, even if the declarant is not produced at trial.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the medical diagnosis and treatment hearsay exception (W.R.E. 803(4)) to include statements identifying the perpetrator in child sexual abuse cases. It carves out a specific exception to the general rule that statements of fault are inadmissible, reasoning that the identity of an abuser within a household is pertinent to a child's overall medical and psychological treatment. By affirming that this exception is 'firmly-rooted,' the court streamlines the Confrontation Clause analysis, allowing such statements to be admitted without requiring the victim's testimony or a separate finding of unavailability. This precedent significantly aids prosecutors in child abuse cases where victims may be unable or unwilling to testify.
