Davison v. State, 2012 Alas. LEXIS 114

Dennis Davison was convicted of sexually abusing his fourteen-year-old daughter, R.D.
R.D. underwent a SART examination conducted at Nome hospital with a trooper, a nurse, and a women's-group advocate present.
During the SART exam, the doctor summarized R.D.'s statements about the alleged penetration, which formed the basis for conviction on penile penetration.
The trial court admitted the doctor’s testimony regarding R.D.’s statements under the medical treatment hearsay exception, over Davison’s objection.
The presentence report included R.D.’s SART statements about digital and oral penetration, which Davison objected to as improperly supporting an acquitted theory.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Alaska Supreme Court granted review on admissibility and presentence report issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of SART statements under medical treatment exception	Davison argued statements were not for medical diagnosis or treatment given forensic focus and officer involvement.	State argued statements were made for medical purposes and were reasonably relied upon for diagnosis and treatment.	Not admissible under Rule 803(4); error harmless to conviction.
Presentence report: redaction of digital/oral penetration allegations	The jury acquitted those digital/oral penetration charges; statements should be redacted from the PSR.	Trial court could rely on verified information in the PSR; no testimonial denial by Davison.	Remanded for the appellate court to decide whether the digital/oral allegations were sufficiently verified for PSR inclusion.

Sluka v. State, 717 P.2d 394 (Alaska App. 1986) (medical treatment exception factors; focus on declarant's motive and reliance by physician)
Jeffries v. State, 169 P.3d 913 (Alaska 2007) (admissibility considerations in medical treatment vs. forensic context)
Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1969) (foundation for exceptions to hearsay in medical contexts)
Nukapigak v. State, 562 P.2d 697 (Alaska 1977) (verifications standards for presentence information)
Hinson v. State, 199 P.3d 1166 (Alaska App. 2008) (testimonial denial and reliance on verified information in PSR)