Opinion ID: 2339307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Statements to the SANE

Text: The other Crawford issue relates to the testimony of the SANE regarding V.B.'s statements in the hospital emergency room, where V.B. was taken by ambulance after law enforcement officers arrived at the scene. Bennington made a continuing Confrontation Clause objection at the outset of the SANE's testimony to any statements made by V.B. to the SANE. Some additional facts are necessary to understand the context of the statements. The SANE explained on direct examination that before conducting a physical examination, she took a history from the patient, an account of what happened to her. The SANE then completed a head-to-toe assessment, a detailed genitalia exam, and then collected forensic evidence. In testimony that sets this case apart from a situation where statements are made solely to a health care professional, the SANE explained a law enforcement officer was present during V.B.'s history. While the SANE asked for a narrative statement, asking V.B. to explain what had happened, the officer also asked V.B. a few specific questions. The SANE wrote down V.B.'s statements, which incorporated her responses to all questions. The SANE's notes were recorded in the medical chart; in those notes, one cannot make a distinction between the statements to the SANE and the statements to the officer. After the history had been obtained, V.B. was moved to a different location where the second step, a sexual assault assessment, was conducted, which entailed a head-to-toe examination and a detailed examination of V.B.'s genitalia. Bennington did not object during the SANE's testimony regarding physical findings or to the admission of photographs taken by the SANE during the physical examination. The standing objection made to the SANE's testimony also did not cover any physical findings or the photographs, as these observations were made by the SANE who was confronted by Bennington before the jury. See K.S.A. 60-404 (contemporaneous objection statute); State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, Syl. ¶ 5, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (party cannot object to the introduction of evidence on one ground at trial and then assert another ground on appeal); State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 487-88, 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (same); State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 341-42, 346-48, 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (timely and specific objection preserves issues related to admission of evidence for appeal). During this portion of the examination, the SANE completed a Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) sexual assault evidence kit in compliance with the procedures established by the KBI and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment pursuant to K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 65-448. One form within this kit was an anatomical drawing of the external female genitalia. The SANE recorded her observations of physical injuries on this form. Defense counsel specifically stated there were no objections to the admission of this form as an exhibit. Another form in the KBI kit was a questionnaire, which listed questions asking about the nature of the assault, the specific time of the assault, the name of the perpetrator, and a description of the perpetrator. The victim was also asked whether the victim had other sexual relations in the last 72 hours. The SANE explained the last question was helpful when analyzing the import of forensic evidence. Regarding the information supplied by V.B. in response to these questions, the SANE testified that V.B. reported penetration in all three areas, the genital, anal and oral. Bennington did not state a separate objection to testimony regarding V.B.'s statements as recorded on this form.