Opinion ID: 1367785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Videotape as a whole.

Text: The trial court admitted the videotape pursuant to OEC 803(4), the exception to the hearsay exclusion for out-of-court statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. [3] In his first assignment of error on appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting any part of the videotape, because the child did not make any statements for the purposes contemplated by OEC 803(4), because all her statements exceeded the proper subject matter permitted by that rule, and because the interview took place after the C.A.R.E.S. doctor had already made a diagnosis of the child and therefore was not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment of the child. In State v. Moen, 309 Or. 45, 55, 786 P.2d 111 (1990), this court explained the reasons why a court may admit an out-of-court statement made for the purpose of obtaining a medical diagnosis or treatment: the patient's desire for proper treatment or diagnosis outweighs any motive to falsify, and a fact reliable enough to serve as the basis for a diagnosis is also reliable enough to escape hearsay proscription. (Citations and internal quotations omitted.) This court stated that, in order to be admissible under OEC 803(4), an out-of-court statement must meet three requirements: (a) The statement must be `made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment'; (b) The statement must describe or relate `medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause [or] external source thereof'; (c) The statement must be `reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.' Id. at 55, 786 P.2d 111. See also State v. Jensen, 313 Or. 587, 592-93, 837 P.2d 525 (1992) (quoting the three-part test from State v. Moen, supra ). We examine the videotape in this case to determine whether the trial court properly found that it satisfied those requirements. Whether a declarant made statements for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment must be determined by reference to the circumstances in which those statements were made. State v. Moen, supra, 309 Or. at 55-56, 786 P.2d 111. When the C.A.R.E.S. doctor had finished the child's physical examination, the following exchange took place: [DOCTOR]: [Child,] I'm done with your check-up part. [CHILD]: Okay. [DOCTOR]: Okay, and you had a good check-up. I can see the places you know how you told me that you got touched by somebody [CHILD]: Uh huh. [DOCTOR]: I can see the places where you got touched but they are healing up really well. And, [the interviewer] needs to talk to you a little bit more about that touching that happened. [CHILD]: Uh huh. [DOCTOR]: Because we need to find out as much as we can about it so that we know how to make sure that you are safe and if you need any treatment, any medicine or anything. [CHILD]: Oh gosh, I had that when I had my cut. [DOCTOR]: You did? You had some medicine? [CHILD]: Yeah. My pills were aboutlong, you know how capsules are. [DOCTOR]: Yeah. [CHILD]: I had one of those and it tasted horrible. [DOCTOR]: Okay. Well, if you need any medicine we will try not to give you anything that tastes horrible. So, I'll see you in a little while. [CHILD]: Yeah, I had strawberry and grape when I had seizures. [DOCTOR]: Oh, you did? [CHILD]: Yep, I had seizures. [DOCTOR]: Oh, you did? [CHILD]: I had strawberry and grape. And, grape was the best. [DOCTOR]: It was the best huh? Now, it's really important to tell [the interviewer] the real things that happened to you, okay? Do you know the difference between the truth and a lie? [CHILD]: Uh huh. [DOCTOR]: Yeah, so we need to know the truth. Okay? [CHILD]: Okay. [DOCTOR]: We'll see you soon. From that exchange, the trial court properly could conclude that the child knew (a) that the purpose of the interview was to obtain a medical diagnosis or treatment and (b) that she had to be truthful to advance that medical diagnosis or treatment. We conclude that the trial court was entitled to find that the child's statements made during the videotaped interview were made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. OEC 803(4). Second, the subject matter of most of the child's statements was proper. [4] Using the anatomically complete dolls, she described and demonstrated the history of defendant's sexual conduct toward her. She told the interviewer that what defendant did to her hurtthat is, she described physical symptoms resulting from that conduct. Her descriptions of what happened to her informed the interviewer of the cause or source of her complaints. The trial court was entitled to find, therefore, that the videotaped interview as a whole related to the child's medical history, her symptoms, and the cause or external source of her injury. OEC 803(4). See State v. Jensen, supra, 313 Or. at 590, 596, 837 P.2d 525 (the child's statement that Daddy dunked me described cause or source of burns); State v. Moen, supra, 309 Or. at 57, 786 P.2d 111 (the victim's statements about the defendant's presence in her home and his abusive conduct toward her were admissible as descriptions of the source of her depression). Finally, most of the child's statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. OEC 803(4). During the pretrial hearing on the admissibility of the videotape, the C.A.R.E.S. doctor who diagnosed the child testified that the interview confirmed or partially confirmed the physical evidence of abuse. The doctor also testified that information revealed in such interviews assists C.A.R.E.S. staff in determining appropriate therapy for abused children. The fact that the child's statements also related to the identity of the perpetrator of the abuse does not render them inadmissible. In a case involving physical or sexual abuse of a child, information about the identity of the perpetrator may be crucial to treatmentfor instance, by suggesting what issues need to be addressed in the psychological therapy provided to the child or by indicating whether the child should be removed from a particular living situation. See State v. Jensen, supra, 313 Or. at 596-97, 837 P.2d 525 (reaching a similar conclusion and citing State v. Moen, supra , and cases from other jurisdictions agreeing with it). The C.A.R.E.S. doctor testified that, in this case, she used the information obtained in the interview in deciding what treatment to recommend for the child: fairly extensive therapy with a therapist experienced in treating children who had been sexually molested[;]    protection from the people that she named as having molested her, including defendant. The trial court was entitled to find that the videotaped interview as a whole was reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. We conclude that the record supports the trial court's finding that the requirements for admissibility pursuant to OEC 803(4) were met. See OEC 104(1) (preliminary questions concerning admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court). The trial court did not err in admitting the videotaped interview.