Justo Mazariegos Campos v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 690
Va. Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant Campos appeals convictions for aggravated sexual battery by a parent, carn al knowledge of a child, taking indecent liberties with a child, and object sexual penetration in Halifax County.”
- The victim, C.F., was around 4 when Campos became a father figure through dating the mother, gaining authority over her discipline.
- C.F. reported abuse in 2012 and again in 2013, but initial reports were recanted after the mother, Stacey Campos, did not believe them.
- In 2014, C.F. disclosed a specific 2014 incident to Kling, a forensic nurse examiner, during a medical–diagnosis/treatment context.
- Kling testified about C.F.’s statements during direct examination; Campos challenged them as testimonial hearsay under Crawford, and as hearsay not within the medical-treatment exception.
- The trial court admitted Kling’s testimony as non-testimonial and within the medical-treatment hearsay exception, with one exception regarding a threat statement, which the court later deemed harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause violation | Campos contends Kling’s recounted statements were testimonial hearsay. | Commonwealth argues declarant testified and was cross-examined, satisfying Crawford. | No Confrontation Clause violation; CF testified and was cross-examined. |
| Admissibility of CF’s statements under Rule 2:803(4) | Statements to Kling should be inadmissible as non-medical hearsay. | Statements fall within medical-treatment exception and are reliably linked to diagnosis/treatment. | Statements admissible under Rule 2:803(4) with one exception (the threat statement). |
| Hearsay exception for the threat statement | The threat-related remark is not within Rule 2:803(4). | Threat remark may be considered within the scope of the physician’s diagnostic/forensic role. | Threat statement not admissible under 2:803(4); error deemed harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cartera v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 516 (1987) (recognizes historical medical-treatment-like exception for past pain/symptoms (non-hearsay basis))
- Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 333 (1997) (distinguishes Cartera and limits medical-treatment exception where reliable)
- Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (2013) (limits medical-treatment exception in non-physician contexts; emphasizes reliability)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Sixth Amendment Confrontation; declarant must be unavailable or cross-examined)
- Abney v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 337 (2008) (limits effectiveness of cross-examination as the sole measure of confrontation rights)
- McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193 (2004) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; historical findings preserved)