Opinion ID: 1285087
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliability Issue

Text: The Appellant also attacks the admissibility of the statements in the present case based upon the alleged absence of reliability. As this Court recognized in syllabus point four of State v. Mason, 194 W.Va. 221, 460 S.E.2d 36 (1995), Even though the unavailability requirement has been met, the Confrontation Clause contained in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates the exclusion of evidence that does not bear adequate indicia of reliability. Reliability can usually be inferred where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Syllabus Point 5, State v. James Edward S., 184 W.Va. 408, 400 S.E.2d 843 (1990). In syllabus point six of Mason, this Court further explained: For purposes of the Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution, no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the United States Supreme Court clarified that hearsay evidence that falls under a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or alternatively, when such evidence is accompanied by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible without any affront to the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531. Specifically, the Roberts Court held that [r]eliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Id. In syllabus point four of State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990), this Court explained: The following [is] ... not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ... (4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. W.Va.R.Evid. 803(4). In syllabus point five, the Edward Charles L. Court continued: The two-part test set for admitting hearsay statements pursuant to W.Va.R.Evid. 803(4) is (1) the declarant's motive in making the statements must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment, and (2) the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied upon by a physician in treatment or diagnosis. The issue of reliability and reliance upon Rule 803(4) was also raised in Pettrey. In that case, this Court affirmed the lower court's finding that Ms. Hasty's testimony in Pettrey was reliable because it fell within the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule. [6] The Pettrey Court reviewed the Edward Charles L. analysis quoted above and determined that [t]he statements made to Ms. Hasty by the children regarding the sexual abuse were made in a therapeutic context. Her sole involvement with K.R. and D.R. was diagnosis and treatment. Also, the statements were such that they were reasonably relied upon by Ms. Hasty in her diagnosis and treatment. Ms. Hasty's testimony was properly admitted at trial. 209 W.Va. at 460, 549 S.E.2d at 334. The Pettrey Court concluded as follows in syllabus point nine: When a social worker, counselor, or psychologist is trained in play therapy and thereafter treats a child abuse victim with play therapy, the therapist's testimony is admissible at trial under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule, West Virginia Rule of Evidence 803(4), if the declarant's motive in making the statement is consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment and the content of the statement is reasonably relied upon by the therapist for treatment. The testimony is inadmissible if the evidence was gathered strictly for investigative or forensic purposes. We find no legitimate basis upon which to distinguish the circumstances of the present case from those evaluated by this Court in Pettrey. We consequently conclude that the statements of the children to the therapist fall within the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule and thereby possess sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause. We affirm the decision of the lower court in this regard.