State v. Salazar
1 CA-CR 20-0097
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- In May 2012 two women (A.F. and N.C.) were abducted and sexually assaulted by two men; both later underwent forensic medical exams and DNA swabs were collected.
- Forensic testing in 2013 located a full DNA profile on A.F.’s external genital swab; a 2015 CODIS match identified Anthony Salazar.
- Salazar was indicted on multiple counts related to both victims; at trial both victims testified but displayed memory gaps about details of the assaults.
- Forensic nurses testified about exams and the victims’ statements to them; the trial court admitted those pretrial statements for the limited purpose of explaining medical treatment.
- The responding police officer also testified about the victims’ initial statements; Salazar did not object at trial to that testimony.
- The jury convicted Salazar on most counts; on appeal he argued three Confrontation Clause errors: (1) victims’ memory loss prevented effective cross-examination, (2) nurse statements were testimonial, and (3) responding officer’s testimony about pretrial statements was testimonial and inadmissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victims’ memory loss denied Salazar effective cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause | State: No — Salazar had full opportunity to probe memory gaps and credibility on cross-examination | Salazar: Memory loss prevented meaningful confrontation and effective cross-examination | No violation — opportunity to cross-examine was unrestricted, so Confrontation Clause satisfied |
| Whether victims’ pretrial statements to nurses were testimonial (inadmissible without prior confrontation) | State: Statements were nontestimonial because their primary purpose was medical care, not evidence-gathering | Salazar: Statements were testimonial and their admission violated his confrontation rights | No violation — objectively primary purpose was medical treatment; statements nontestimonial and admissible |
| Whether victims’ pretrial statements to the responding officer were testimonial and inadmissible (defense did not object at trial) | State: Victims later testified and were fully cross-examined, so prior statements are admissible | Salazar: Admission of officer’s testimony about those statements violated Confrontation Clause | No fundamental error — victims testified and were cross-examined before officer’s testimony, satisfying Crawford principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statement rule: testimonial out-of-court statements inadmissible unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause protects opportunity for effective cross-examination, not perfect recollection)
- U.S. v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (victim’s impaired memory does not bar admission of prior identification or statements when witness testifies and is cross-examined)
- State v. Hill, 236 Ariz. 162 (App. 2014) (statements to medical personnel are nontestimonial when primary purpose is medical care)
- State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298 (2007) (Confrontation Clause not implicated by nontestimonial pretrial statements)
- State v. Shivers, 230 Ariz. 91 (App. 2012) (review of Confrontation Clause rulings is de novo)
- State v. Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509 (2002) (admissibility analysis focuses on whether defendant had opportunity to elicit information affecting credibility)