Opinion ID: 160186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Statements Made to Dr. Hoffman

Text: 15 Edward argues on appeal the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Dr. Hoffman under the medical history hearsay exception of Fed. R. of Evid. 803(4) because the government failed to establish the children understood the medical importance of telling the truth to Dr. Hoffman during the examination. Edward argues without such evidence the rationale behind the medical history exception is no longer applicable. While he concedes we have previously rejected this same argument, Edward encourages us to adopt the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit and establish a presumption that Rule 803(4) does not apply to statements given by young children to their doctors identifying their abusers unless the physician first explains to the child such information is important for their treatment. We decline to do so. 16 The rationale behind the Rule 803(4) exception is that because a patient's medical care depends on the accuracy of the information she provides, the patient has a selfish motive to be truthful; consequently, a patient's statements to her physician are likely to be particularly reliable. United States v. Pacheco, 154 F.3d 1236, 1240 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 (1999). The Eighth Circuit has held young children do not necessarily understand the medical importance of being truthful, and therefore young victims' statements to their doctors 17 are admissible only when the prosecution is able to demonstrate that the victim's motive in making the statement was consistent with the purpose of promoting treatment that is, where the physician makes clear to the victim that the inquiry into the identity of the abuser is important to diagnosis and treatment, and the victim manifests such an understanding. 18 Olesen v. Class, 164 F.3d 1096, 1098 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430, 438 (8th Cir. 1985)). We have specifically rejected this presumption against admission of hearsay evidence under the Rule 803(4) exception in the case of children. See Pacheco, 154 F.3d at 1240-42; Norman T., 129 F.3d at 1105-06. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, this panel cannot overturn the decision of another panel of this court barring en banc reconsideration, a superseding contrary Supreme Court decision, or authorization of all currently active judges on the court. United States v. Meyers, 200 F.3d 715, 720-21 (10th Cir. 2000). Because none of the aforementioned events has come to fruition, we reject Edward's argument and hold the testimony of Dr. Hoffman properly admitted. 3 19