1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45480

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LANCE CAMERON CLEMENTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: April 3, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Steven Hippler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge

Lance Cameron Clements appeals from his judgment of conviction for two counts of 

lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen. Clements argues the district court erred 

when it admitted the CARES1video of the victim’s interview pursuant to Idaho Rules of 

Evidence 803(4), as the statements made to the social worker who conducted the interview were 

not for the purpose of medical diagnosis. The State argues the statements were made for the 

purpose of medical diagnosis and consequently, the district court did not err in admitting the 

CARES video. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 

1 CARES is an acronym for Children at Risk Evaluation Services and is an outpatient 

medical facility run by St. Luke’s Medical Center. 
2

Clements was indicted for three counts of lewd conduct with a minor child under the age 

of sixteen and one count of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen after his daughter, 

T.C., reported allegations of sexual acts to her mother. T.C.’s mother called the police 

department and was referred to the CARES unit for an interview. The CARES’ process 

generally includes an interview with a forensic social worker and then a follow-up medical 

examination by a doctor. T.C. and her mother arrived at CARES one to two days after T.C. 

disclosed the sexual behavior. Because the facility did not have a social worker on staff to 

conduct an interview with T.C., Dr. Matthew Cox, a pediatrician and the medical director of 

CARES, conducted the medical evaluation of T.C. that day. Dr. Cox found evidence of physical 

injury that could not have been self-inflicted. 

T.C. was brought back to the CARES unit the following day for the interview and a 

second medical examination. A trained social worker interviewed T.C. for over an hour while 

Dr. Cox watched from a separate interview room. During that time, the social worker took 

breaks to confer with both law enforcement and Dr. Cox to see if there were additional questions 

that needed to be asked. Dr. Cox testified that he watched the interview to determine whether he 

should alter the scope of the upcoming medical examination of T.C. Dr. Cox subsequently 

examined T.C.

The State filed a motion in limine and a notice of intent to introduce materials pursuant to 

Idaho Rules of Evidence 803(4), 803(24), and 612. Specifically, the State sought to admit the 

CARES video interview of T.C. Clements objected and argued the evidence was inadmissible. 

Following a hearing, the district court held that T.C.’s statements made to the social worker 

during the interview were admissible pursuant to I.R.E. 803(4). The district court reasoned that 

T.C.’s statements were made for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis, as they altered or 

provided the scope of the medical examination subsequently conducted by Dr. Cox. 

The morning of trial, Clements’ counsel made an additional objection regarding the 

CARES interview, arguing that not all of T.C.’s statements were admissible pursuant to 

I.R.E. 803(4). Clements’ counsel offered to parse through the video to identify the statements to 

which she objected. She asked the district court to then redact any statement not falling within 

I.R.E. 803(4). The district court denied the motion, holding that Clements’ had waived any 

objection to individual statements on the videotape by failing to make the objection at the 

previous evidentiary hearing. The district court further explained that waiting until the morning 
3

of trial to work on redacting a videotape was too time consuming to be done at that late date. 

Finally, the district court held the motion failed, generally, because T.C. believed she was 

providing the statements for the purpose of medical treatment, so all statements would be 

admissible. 

Following a trial in which the interview videotape was admitted, Clements was convicted 

of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor and acquitted of the other charges. The district court 

imposed concurrent, unified sentences of thirty years, with ten years determinate. Clements 

appeals.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The decision whether to admit evidence at trial is generally within the province of the 

trial court. State v. Gilpin, 132 Idaho 643, 646, 977 P.2d 905, 908 (Ct. App. 1999). Therefore, a 

trial court’s determination as to the admission of evidence at trial will only be reversed where 

there has been an abuse of that discretion. State v. Zimmerman, 121 Idaho 971, 973-74, 829 P.2d 

861, 863-64 (1992).

When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court 

conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the 

issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion, acted consistently with 

any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it, and reached its decision by an 

exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 

Error is not reversible unless it is prejudicial. State v. Stoddard, 105 Idaho 169, 171, 667 

P.2d 272, 274 (Ct. App. 1983). With limited exceptions, even constitutional error is not 

necessarily prejudicial error. Id. Thus, we examine whether the alleged error complained of in 

the present case was harmless. See State v. Lopez, 141 Idaho 575, 578, 114 P.3d 133, 136 (Ct. 

App. 2005). Where a defendant meets his or her initial burden of showing that a constitutional 

violation has occurred, the State has the burden of demonstrating to the appellate court beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the jury’s verdict. State v. Perry, 150 

Idaho 209, 227-28, 245 P.3d 961, 979-80 (2010). 
4

III.

ANALYSIS

Clements argues that because T.C.’s statements were not made to a person who could 

provide medical treatment, the statements were inadmissible pursuant to I.R.E. 803(4). 

Alternatively, Clements argues that because the medical examination had already been 

completed, T.C.’s statements could not have been for the purpose of medical diagnosis or 

treatment pursuant to I.R.E. 803(4). Clements also asserts the district court erred in holding that 

Clements waived any objections to individual statements as opposed to the video as a whole. 

The State argues that T.C.’s statements were made for the purposes of medical diagnosis and 

treatment and to whom the statements were made is not the controlling question. Moreover, the 

State asserts that even if the videotape was erroneously admitted, the error was harmless because 

several witnesses, including T.C., testified without objection regarding the same events. The 

State also argues that the district court did not err in holding that Clements waived any objections 

to individual statements and also argues any error was harmless because of the overwhelming 

evidence of Clements’ guilt. Because this Court finds any alleged error to be harmless, we need 

not address whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the video. 

At trial, T.C.’s mother testified without objection that T.C. told her that Clements’ had 

touched her “front no-no area” inside her panties, Clements rubbed T.C.’s front genitals on the 

inside of her panties with his finger and asked T.C. if it felt good, and Clements had T.C. 

perform oral sex on him. T.C.’s mother also testified that she looked at T.C.’s genitals and 

noticed they were red and irritated. T.C. testified in detail about the various sexual acts that 

Clements did to T.C. or had T.C. do to him; Clements did not cross examine T.C.

Dr. Cox also testified, without objection, that T.C. stated Clements had touched her front 

genitals and Clements had her perform oral sex on him. Dr. Cox testified that he performed 

medical examinations of T.C. and the physical findings from T.C.’s medical examination

demonstrated some recent injuries to T.C.’s genitals, one of which could not be self-inflicted, 

and both injuries were consistent with T.C.’s disclosure of sexual abuse.

Consequently, any evidence provided in the CARES interview was cumulative to the 

testimony already provided. In light of the testimony regarding Clements’ guilt, this Court finds 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the CARES interview did not contribute to the 

verdict in this case. 
5

IV.

CONCLUSION

Even if the district court erred in admitting the CARES interview video and in finding 

Clements waived any objections to individual statements within the video, any such error was 

harmless. Consequently, we affirm Clements’ judgment of conviction. 

Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge BRAILSFORD CONCUR.