Opinion ID: 1766928
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner's Questioning was Predominantly for the Purpose of Information Gathering and the Resulting Statement was Testimonial.

Text: In the case at bar, the interview of M.B. by the SANE nurse bears more similarity to a police interview, as in Crawford and Hammon , than to the questioning conducted in the 911 call in Davis . Davis advises that persons who are not police officers, but who may be regarded as agents of law enforcement (such as the 911 operator), can conduct interrogations which would likewise be considered testimonial. [22] After the alleged rape, M.B. was taken to the hospital, [23] where she provided the SANE nurse with the details of what occurred. The nurse also utilized a sexual assault collection kit. The SANE nurse was acting in cooperation with or for the police. The protocol of SANE nurses requires them to act upon request of a peace officer or prosecuting attorney. [24] A SANE nurse serves two roles: providing medical treatment and gathering evidence. [25] SANE nurses act to supplement law enforcement by eliciting evidence of past offenses with an eye toward future criminal prosecution. The SANE nurse under KRS 314.011(14) is made available to victims of sexual offenses, which makes the SANE nurse an active participant in the formal criminal investigation. We believe their function of evidence gathering, combined with their close relationships with law enforcement, renders SANE nurses' interviews the functional equivalent of police questioning. In the case before us, the SANE nurse's interview was not to provide help for an ongoing emergency but, rather, for disclosure of information regarding what had happened in the past. M.B. was away from the perpetrator, and the questioning was not for the purpose of resolving a problem. The interview had some level of formality, despite being unsworn. So the statement was virtually the kind of statement that a witness would give at a trial or hearing. Looking to the factors enumerated in Davis , the SANE nurse's questioning involved past events, was not related to an ongoing emergency, and took on the nature of a formal interview. So we conclude that the statements taken from M.B. during her interview with the SANE nurse were testimonial in nature. Following the Supreme Court precedent, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the trial court's ruling in limine excluding from use at trial the statements M.B. gave the SANE nurse. These statements were testimonial statements that Hartsfield never had the opportunity to cross-examine and so they are barred by the Confrontation Clause.