State v. Carol M.D.
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- State v. HoffmanWashington Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. SwanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- 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
- In re the Personal Restraint of GrassoWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- Whaley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
- In Re Personal Restraint of GrassoWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. KilgoreCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- State v. KilgoreCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.