THOMPSON v. STATE, 438 P.3d 373

In Jan. 2015 A.T. returned to her grandmother visibly injured and stated R. Jay Thompson had abducted, beaten, threatened, and sexually assaulted her multiple times; she was taken to the hospital and examined by a SANE nurse.
SANE exam (next morning) documented A.T.’s narrative naming Thompson and recorded injuries consistent with her account; exam also collected forensic evidence and provided some medical treatment/prophylaxis.
Police arrested Thompson, interviewed him twice (videotaped); he claimed consensual sex and offered alternative explanations for A.T.’s injuries; a texting exchange suggested motive.
A.T. became unconscious after interacting with police, remained in a vegetative state, and died about a year later; she was unavailable to testify at trial.
At trial the State admitted (1) A.T.’s statements to the SANE nurse under the medical-diagnosis hearsay exception and (2) A.T.’s statements to her grandmother as excited utterances; Thompson objected on Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds.
The jury convicted Thompson on kidnapping, forcible sodomy, two counts of first-degree rape, aggravated assault and battery, and a pattern-of-criminal-offenses count; the OCCA affirmed.

Issue	Thompson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Confrontation Clause of A.T.’s statements to SANE nurse	Statements were testimonial; admitting them violated Crawford because A.T. was unavailable and there was no prior cross-examination	Statements were non‑testimonial because the primary purpose of the SANE exam was medical diagnosis/treatment; admissible under the medical-treatment hearsay exception	Court held statements were non‑testimonial (primary purpose medical); admission did not violate Confrontation Clause and fit §2803(4) exception
Admissibility under Confrontation Clause of A.T.’s statements to grandmother	Statements were testimonial and admission violated Confrontation Clause	Statements were informal, spontaneous, not intended as a substitute for trial testimony and thus non‑testimonial	Court held statements non‑testimonial; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause
Hearsay exception — excited utterance for statements to grandmother	Statements were too remote in time / susceptible to fabrication to qualify as excited utterance	Statements were spontaneous, made immediately after release from attacker while distraught and injured; fit excited-utterance exception (§2803(2))	Court found trial court did not abuse discretion; statements were admissible as excited utterances

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out‑of‑court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (primary‑purpose test governs whether statements are testimonial)
Kennedy v. State, 839 P.2d 667 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) (medical‑diagnosis hearsay exception — Kennedy two‑pronged test)
Tryon v. State, 423 P.3d 617 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018) (de novo review of Confrontation Clause rulings)
Pullen v. State, 387 P.3d 922 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (preservation rules for Confrontation Clause objections)
Martinez v. State, 371 P.3d 1100 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (excited‑utterance foundational requirements and timing/spontaneity analysis)