State v. Felts, 52 N.E.3d 1223

Defendant Brett Felts was indicted for one count of gross sexual imposition involving a 3‑year‑old victim after a weekend visit with the victim’s aunt and Felts. The child was found incompetent to testify at trial.
The mother testified that, shortly after the visit, the child was unusually quiet, had redness in her vaginal area, and told the mother that “Brett touched her,” pointing to her vaginal area.
A SANE nurse performed a sexual‑assault kit at the hospital; the social‑service worker (Laura Butt) later interviewed the child at the Child Protection Center and recorded the child identifying Felts, indicating the touching was to her skin and pointing to the crotch area.
Laboratory testing identified semen and a major DNA profile on the child’s underwear matching Felts.
At pretrial and trial the defense sought exclusion of the child’s statements to the social‑service worker (arguing they were testimonial) and to the mother (arguing they were inadmissible hearsay not within the excited‑utterance exception). The trial court admitted both; Felts was convicted and appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Felts's Argument	Held
Whether statements the child made to the social‑service worker were testimonial (Confrontation Clause)	Statements were made for medical diagnosis/treatment (to identify perpetrator, location, skin vs. clothing) and thus nontestimonial and admissible	Interview’s primary purpose was investigative/forensic (not medical); admission violated Confrontation Clause	Court held statements were nontestimonial (primary purpose diagnostic) and admissible; even if erroneous, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to cumulative evidence (mother’s statement, other admissible child statements, DNA).
Whether the child’s statement to her mother was admissible under the excited‑utterance exception to hearsay	Child’s limited reflective capacity and contemporaneous presentation (within hours) supported admissibility as an excited utterance; mother’s questions were not coercive	No evidence child remained under nervous excitement when she made the disclosure; hence hearsay excluded	Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: child’s age, short time lapse, abnormal demeanor, and non‑leading maternal questioning supported excited‑utterance admission.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (recognition that testimonial out‑of‑court statements implicate the Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (primary‑purpose test distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S.Ct. 2173 (statements nontestimonial when primary purpose is medical/assistance rather than prosecution)
State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (statements to medical personnel for diagnosis/treatment admissible despite Crawford)
State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (child‑advocacy center interviews require statement‑by‑statement primary‑purpose analysis; medical‑purpose statements are nontestimonial)
State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio test and discussion for excited‑utterance exception for child declarants)