Legal Opinion

State v. Carol M.D.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 9, 1997No. 15014-3-III, 15040-2-IIIPublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Schultheis, A.C.J.

ER 803(a)(4) excepts from the hearsay rule “[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. . . .” The admission of such statements at trial does not violate the Confrontation Clause because their reliability is insured by the declarant’s self-interest in providing accurate information to obtain effective medical treatment. In this case, we are asked to decide whether the trial court properly admitted under ER 803(a)(4) statements made by a child to her counselor describing sexual abuse by her parents. We conclude the court admitted those statements without…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. State v. HoffmanWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. SwanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  5. United States v. Harvey M. RenvilleCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. In re the Personal Restraint of GrassoWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Whaley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
  3. In Re Personal Restraint of GrassoWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. KilgoreCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  5. State v. KilgoreCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API