Anderson v. State

ADKINS, J., dissenting, in which HARRELL, J., joins.

Most respectfully, I dissent from the majority opinion because it seems to superimpose an additional requirement on the Maryland Rule 5—803(b)(4) hearsay exception, i.e., that there be an explicit statement from the child that she understood why she was referred to the health care provider. Although I do not dispute that the pertinent inquiry in deciding whether to admit such evidence is whether the patient believed that the health care provider was going to diagnose or treat her, I think that the trial judge may make such determination…