State v. Stahl
111 Ohio St. 3d 186 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made to medical personnel for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are non-testimonial under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, even if there is a secondary purpose of evidence collection for prosecution and the declarant anticipates the information might be used at trial.
Facts:
- Ann Mazurek went to the office of her boyfriend's former boss, James Stahl, in an effort to help her boyfriend regain his job.
- The next day, Mazurek reported to Officer Amy Ellis that Stahl had orally raped her during the visit.
- Officer Ellis transported Mazurek to the Developing Options for Violent Emergencies (DOVE) unit at St. Thomas Hospital, which specializes in services for sexual assault victims.
- Before her examination, Mazurek signed a consent form authorizing the release of 'evidence, information... clothing... and photography... to a law enforcement agency for use only in the investigation and prosecution of this crime.'
- Nurse practitioner Jenifer Markowitz took a detailed incident history from Mazurek, during which Mazurek recounted the assault and identified Stahl as the perpetrator.
- Officer Ellis was present in the examination room while Markowitz took the history but did not participate in the questioning.
- Markowitz then conducted a physical examination and collected forensic evidence using a sexual assault evidence collection kit.
- Approximately five weeks later, Mazurek died from an unrelated seizure disorder, making her unavailable to testify.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in Summit County indicted James Stahl on one count of rape and one count of kidnapping.
- Stahl filed a motion in limine in the trial court to exclude Mazurek’s statements to the nurse, which the court treated as a motion to suppress.
- The trial court granted the motion, finding the statements were testimonial under Crawford v. Washington and therefore inadmissible.
- The State of Ohio, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, with Stahl as the appellee.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding the statements were non-testimonial.
- Stahl, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which granted discretionary review to decide the issue.
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 a rape victim's statement to a nurse practitioner during a medical examination, which identifies the assailant, constitute a 'testimonial' statement under Crawford v. Washington, thus implicating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the victim is unavailable to testify?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Donnell, J.
No. The victim's statement to a nurse practitioner during a medical examination is not a testimonial statement under the Confrontation Clause. The court adopts an 'objective witness' test, holding that a statement is testimonial if made 'under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.' The analysis focuses on the declarant's reasonable expectation, and the primary purpose of Mazurek's statements to Markowitz was for medical diagnosis and treatment, not criminal prosecution. Although the DOVE unit also collects evidence for law enforcement, its primary function is patient care. Having already given a formal statement to Officer Ellis for prosecutorial purposes, a reasonable person in Mazurek's position would believe that repeating the information to a medical professional served a distinct, health-related purpose, such as assessing for communicable diseases and planning follow-up care. Therefore, the statement was non-testimonial and its admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Dissenting - Lanzinger, J.
Yes. The victim's statement to the nurse practitioner was a testimonial statement under the Confrontation Clause. While agreeing with the 'objective witness' test, the dissent concludes that the primary purpose of the DOVE unit visit was forensic evidence collection, not medical treatment. Mazurek, an adult, was brought to the unit by a police officer who remained in the room, and she signed a consent form explicitly authorizing the release of 'information' for the 'prosecution of this crime.' Under these circumstances, an objective witness would reasonably believe their statements would be used in a future trial. Therefore, the statement was testimonial, and its admission without the opportunity for cross-examination violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundary between testimonial and non-testimonial statements under Crawford v. Washington, particularly in the medical context. By focusing on the 'primary purpose' of the communication from an objective declarant's perspective, the court carves out a significant exception for statements made for medical diagnosis, even when a prosecutorial purpose coexists. This decision makes it easier for prosecutors to admit statements made by unavailable victims to medical personnel, especially in sexual assault cases where specialized forensic exams are common. It shifts the legal inquiry from the mere presence of law enforcement or evidence collection to a more nuanced, fact-intensive analysis of the primary goal of the interaction.
