State v. Russell Dale Hilterbran
Background
- Defendant Russell Hilterbran was tried and convicted of one count of attempted strangulation and one count of domestic violence with traumatic injury after allegedly choking his 63-year-old partner until she lost consciousness and bruising her jaw.
- The victim (C.S.) experienced persistent throat and neck pain and, two days after the incident, was taken by her daughter to the Family Advocacy Center and Education Services (FACES) for evaluation.
- At FACES a forensic nurse performed a forensic exam that included a physical assessment, questions about symptoms and the events, photographing injuries, and referring the victim to a physician when appropriate.
- The State sought to admit C.S.’s out-of-court statements to the nurse under the medical-diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception (I.R.E. 803(4)); defendant objected, arguing the interview was forensic (evidence-preserving) rather than medical and thus not covered by the exception.
- The district court allowed the nurse to be voir dired; the nurse testified her primary purpose was medical (assessment, diagnosis, treatment/referral) even though forensic evidence collection could also occur.
- The jury convicted on the two counts above; on appeal defendant argued the totality of the circumstances showed the statements were not made for medical diagnosis or treatment and thus were inadmissible hearsay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim’s statements to a forensic nurse were admissible under I.R.E. 803(4) (medical-diagnosis/treatment exception) | Statements were made to a medical professional whose primary purpose was medical; therefore they were for diagnosis/treatment and trustworthy | Nurse’s role was forensic as well as medical; interview’s law‑enforcement/forensic aspects mean statements weren’t primarily for medical care and thus fall outside 803(4) | Court affirmed: under the totality of the circumstances the primary purpose was medical and 803(4) applied; admission not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 117 Idaho 225, 786 P.2d 1127 (trial-court discretion on admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 (appellate review framework for discretionary decisions)
- State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 700, 889 P.2d 729 (hearsay defined and inadmissibility rule)
- State v. Kay, 129 Idaho 507, 927 P.2d 897 (medical-diagnosis/treatment exception premised on declarant’s motive to obtain care)