United States v. Kootswatewa
893 F.3d 1127
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Theodore Kootswatewa was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, and a sex-offender-registration-related offense for sexually abusing K.C., an 11‑year‑old with developmental delays, on the Hopi Reservation.
- Immediate post‑incident statements: a neighbor saw K.C. emerge from an abandoned trailer and reported K.C. said the man had tried to "rape" her; a law‑enforcement officer interviewed K.C. at the scene and she described the abuse; K.C. later underwent a sexual assault exam at a hospital Safe Child Center conducted by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.
- At trial the district court admitted (over defense hearsay objections) the nurse practitioner’s testimony recounting statements K.C. made during the medical exam under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).
- The court also admitted the officer’s testimony recounting K.C.’s immediate statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) as prior consistent statements rebutting defense suggestions of recent fabrication/coaching.
- Defendant challenged both hearsay rulings and also alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing (quoting victim statements and misstating one word—"lured" vs. "took"). The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of nurse’s testimony under Rule 803(4) | Government: statements were made during a medical sexual‑assault exam, for diagnosis/treatment, and described cause/symptoms. | Kootswatewa: foundation lacking because record did not show K.C.’s own understanding that statements were for medical diagnosis/treatment. | Admitted: court may infer declarant’s understanding from objective context (medical setting, questions by practitioner); foundation was adequate. |
| Admissibility of identification and abuse description under Rule 803(4) | Government: identity of abuser is relevant to diagnosis/treatment (protecting child, psychological care). | Kootswatewa: identification is not pertinent to medical diagnosis and thus falls outside Rule 803(4). | Admitted: Ninth Circuit rejects categorical exclusion of ID statements in child sexual‑abuse medical exams. |
| Admissibility of officer’s testimony as prior consistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i) | Government: officer’s recounting rebutted defense suggestion that K.C.’s in‑court testimony was result of recent coaching/ fabrication; statements predated alleged coaching. | Kootswatewa: prior statement did not rebut all alleged motives (e.g., motive to avoid discipline) and prior statements differed on location. | Admitted: prior statements need only rebut one alleged recent improper influence; consistency on critical aspects (perpetrator and abuse) satisfied rule; any minor location discrepancy harmless. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | Government: brief recitation of victim’s recorded/trial statements and one imprecise word choice did not mislead jury. | Kootswatewa: prosecutor improperly spoke in victim’s voice and misstated that officer was told victim was "lured" into trailer. | No reversible error: prosecutor properly attributed statements to K.C.; the "lured"/"took" misstatement was harmless given strong evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (recognizing trustworthiness rationale for hearsay exceptions like medical statements)
- White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (statements to medical personnel are trustworthy because patient seeks correct treatment)
- United States v. Tome, 513 U.S. 150 (prior consistent statement must predate alleged improper influence to be admissible)
- United States v. Lukashov, 694 F.3d 1107 (admitting child’s medical statements under Rule 803(4); identity relevant to treatment/protection)
- United States v. JDT, 762 F.3d 984 (child sexual‑abuse statements admissible under Rule 803(4))
- Guam v. Ignacio, 10 F.3d 608 (admitting child’s statements to medical examiner; children can understand medical purpose)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 533 F.3d 1057 (prior consistent statements need only rebut one alleged improper influence)
- United States v. Chang Da Liu, 538 F.3d 1078 (interpretation of consistency requirement for prior statements)
- United States v. Washington, 462 F.3d 1124 (harmless‑error standard for prosecutorial misstatements)