2013 COA 59
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Tyme was convicted by jury of sexual assault, third degree assault, and false imprisonment based on victim G.A.'s account and forensic evidence.
- G.A. underwent a SANE exam five days after the alleged assault, conducted by Sue Goebel, who gathered a medical history from G.A.
- Goebel testified about statements made by G.A. during the exam and a written report, both challenged as hearsay.
- Defenses objected to admissibility of those statements as hearsay not meeting medical diagnosis or treatment exception.
- Trial court admitted the SANE testimony and report under CRE 803(4); jury convicted Tyme, and the appeal followed.
- The issue on appeal concerns admissibility of statements elicited during a SANE exam under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SANE statements are admissible under medical diagnosis or treatment exception | Tyme argues the statements were for investigation, not diagnosis or treatment | Tyme contends the exception does not apply due to forensic purpose | Admissible if trustworthiness test met (two-part test) as modified by King |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Galloway, 726 P.2d 249 (Colo. App. 1986) (two-part reliability test for medical statements)
- King v. People, 785 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1990) (trustworthiness shown by pertinence to diagnosis; overruled independent motive requirement)
- People v. Allee, 77 P.3d 831 (Colo. App. 2003) (applies two-part test for medical exception)
- People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion)
- Mendez v. State, 242 P.3d 328 (N.M. 2010) (forensic exam statements admissible if trustworthy; medical purpose not decisive)
- Vigil v. State, 810 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 2012) (forensic exam statements admissible when trustworthy)