Opinion ID: 1201077
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements Describing the Crime

Text: Hearsay statements made to further medical diagnosis or treatment may be admissible under Rule 803(4). Some of Nicole's statements to Dr. Davis, her treating psychologist, [9] were admitted pursuant to both A.R.S. § 13-1416 and Rule 803(4). Dr. Davis was allowed to testify that during evaluation and treatment sessions Nicole said that Mike, her babysitter, french-kissed her, which Nicole described as him putting his tongue in her mouth. Nicole also told Dr. Davis that Robinson put his weenee in her privates, [10] and in her mouth. The rationale underlying the Rule 803(4) exception for statements made for purposes of treatment or diagnosis is that doctors will seek and patients will give reliable information to further necessary medical treatment. See United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 83-84 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001, 101 S.Ct. 1709, 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); 4 J. WEINSTEIN & M. BERGER, supra ¶ 803(4)[01], at 803-144 to 146. Thus, the crucial question under the rule is whether the declarant's out-of-court statements were `reasonably pertinent' to diagnosis or treatment. Renville, 779 F.2d at 436. In State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404, 420-21, 661 P.2d 1105, 1121-22, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 199, 78 L.Ed.2d 174 (1983), we announced a two-part test to aid in deciding whether the proffered statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment: (1) was the declarant's apparent motive ... consistent with receiving medical care; and (2) was it reasonable for the physician to rely on the information in diagnosis or treatment. Id. (citing Iron Shell, 633 F.2d at 84). Because of their young age, sexually abused children may not always grasp the relation between their statements and receiving effective medical treatment. It is particularly important, therefore, to ask whether the information sought by the treating doctor was reasonably pertinent to effective treatment. In this case, the record demonstrates Dr. Davis's reliance on and need for the information she obtained from Nicole. Dr. Davis testified that the cause of Nicole's injuries and the identity of her abuser were critical to effective diagnosis and treatment. The record is not as clear regarding Nicole's motive in making the challenged statements. The record does indicate, however, that Nicole's statements were elicited in the course of treatment. And nothing in the record indicates that Nicole's motive in making these statements was other than as a patient seeking [or at least needing] treatment. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d at 84; see also Renville, 779 F.2d at 439; State v. Reidhead, 146 Ariz. 314, 317, 705 P.2d 1365, 1368 (App. 1985) (Hathaway, J., dissenting). Furthermore, the reliability of Nicole's statements is bolstered by her unusual knowledge of sexual matters, her child-like terminology, and her physical and emotional injuries. See post at 201-202, 735 P.2d at 811-812. Considering all the circumstances, Nicole's statements to Dr. Davis meet the requirements of Rule 803(4) and Jeffers, supra . See Renville, 779 F.2d at 436-39.