State v. Bowleg
2014 Ohio 1433
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Bowleg and Ray were indicted on kidnapping and rape for the 1993 alleged assault; DNA matched from a sexual assault kit.
- They moved to dismiss for pre-indictment delay and filed a motion in limine to exclude LJ’s medical records.
- LJ reported rape between 3:30 and 5:00 a.m., was treated at a hospital, and the medical notes described her statements and lack of physical injuries.
- A sexual assault kit was performed; records noted details like absence of underwear and prior police contact.
- The trial court granted the motion in limine, ruling LJ’s medical records were testimonial; the state appealed and the matter was consolidated for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LJ’s medical-record statements are testimonial under the Confrontation Clause | LJ’s statements were nontestimonial and admissible under Evid.R. 803(4) | LJ’s statements were testimonial to aid a future prosecution | Statements are not testimonial; admissible under Evid.R. 803(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (establishes when statements are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- State v. Stahl, 111 Ohio St.3d 186 (2006-Ohio-5482) (objective-witness test for statements to medical personnel)
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (2007-Ohio-5267) (statements to medical personnel for diagnosis/treatment not testimonial)
- State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (2010-Ohio-2742) (medical statements for diagnosis/treatment are nontestimonial)
- State v. Wallace, 2011-Ohio-1728 (3d Dist. Union No. 14-10-20) (statements aiding medical treatment are relevant to diagnosis; not testimonial)