Ward v. State
50 N.E.3d 752 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made to medical personnel for the primary purpose of diagnosis and treatment, including identifying a perpetrator in domestic violence cases for safety and psychological care, are non-testimonial and their admission does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
Facts:
- Dee Ward and J.M. were in a relationship, lived together intermittently, and had a child together.
- On April 10, 2013, J.M.'s step-father saw Ward's truck drop J.M. off at her parents' house.
- J.M. entered the home crying, in pain, and walking 'very gingerly,' then showed her mother severe welts and bruising on her buttocks and legs.
- J.M.'s parents called 911 over her protests.
- A paramedic, Linda Hodge-McKinney, arrived to find J.M. in a fetal position, crying, and rating her pain as a 10 out of 10.
- J.M. told the paramedic that her boyfriend 'Dee' had beaten her with a belt for several hours and prevented her from leaving.
- At the hospital, J.M. was treated by a forensic nurse, Julie Morrison, to whom she again identified 'her boyfriend Dee Ward' as the person who beat her.
- The forensic nurse created a safety plan for J.M., which included classifying her as a 'no information patient' to hide her location and providing referrals to domestic violence support organizations upon discharge.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana charged Dee Ward in trial court with multiple felonies and misdemeanors related to the battery of J.M.
- J.M. failed to appear for two scheduled depositions, and the State classified her as a missing person.
- The State filed a notice of intent to introduce J.M.'s out-of-court statements through the testimony of the paramedic and forensic nurse.
- After a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion to admit the statements.
- Following a bench trial, the court found Ward guilty and entered judgment of conviction for C-felony battery and A-misdemeanor domestic battery.
- Ward (appellant) appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision, holding the statements were nontestimonial.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted Ward's petition to transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
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 an unavailable victim's out-of-court statements to a paramedic and a forensic nurse, identifying her boyfriend as the attacker, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the primary purpose of the questioning was for medical treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rush
No. The admission of the victim's statements does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right because the primary purpose of the conversations was medical treatment, not creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. Applying the 'primary purpose' test from U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Ohio v. Clark, the court determines that statements to non-law enforcement personnel are much less likely to be testimonial. The paramedic's questions were aimed at treating an obviously battered victim in severe pain and ensuring the scene was safe. Similarly, the forensic nurse's questions about the attacker's identity were integral to the medical standard of care for domestic violence victims, which includes assessing psychological trauma and formulating a safety and discharge plan. Therefore, the statements were non-testimonial and properly admitted.
Dissenting - Justice Rucker
Yes, in part. While the statements to the paramedic may be non-testimonial, the statements to the forensic nurse were testimonial and should have been excluded. The forensic nurse served a dual capacity as both a medical caregiver and an evidence gatherer for law enforcement. J.M. signed consent forms that explicitly stated the exam was to 'preserve evidence' that 'will be released to law enforcement authorities.' The State failed to present evidence that identifying the attacker was actually necessary for J.M.'s specific medical treatment, as her discharge was routine. Absent this link, the objective primary purpose of the forensic nurse's questioning about the attacker's identity was to 'establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution,' making the statements testimonial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'primary purpose' test to statements made to medical professionals in Indiana, particularly in domestic violence cases. It establishes a strong precedent that identifying an attacker is part of the medical standard of care, encompassing not just physical treatment but also psychological assessment and safety planning. This broadens the scope of admissible hearsay under the medical diagnosis exception and makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions when domestic violence victims are unavailable or unwilling to testify. The dissent, however, highlights the critical need for the State to demonstrate a concrete link between the identity of an abuser and the actual medical treatment rendered, warning against a blanket rule that could erode the protections of the Confrontation Clause by allowing medical personnel to serve as proxies for police investigators.
Unlock the full brief for Ward v. State