Opinion ID: 2586208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The SANE Nurse's Testimony

Text: {12} Defendant argues the statement given by the victim during the SANE interview was testimonial in three respects. First, the statement was the product of an investigation by authorities. Second, the victim subjectively knew her statement was testimonial in nature. See Davis, 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2274 n. 1 ([E]ven when interrogation exists, it is in the final analysis the declarant's statements, not the interrogator's questions, that the Confrontation Clause requires us to evaluate.). He also reasons a reasonable person would have objectively understood it to be testimonial. [What is testimonial is] in-court testimony or its functional equivalent  that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (internal citation omitted). Finally, as Defendant reasons in his answer brief, the statement was testimonial on its face because it was clearly intended as a criminal accusation directed at Anthony Romero and is a testimonial narrative supporting that accusation. {13} The State argues, on the other hand, that the victim's statement to the SANE nurse was for the purposes of medical treatment and not sufficiently formal to qualify as testimonial or, in the alternative, that the testimonial portions should be redacted to accommodate Davis. [T]rial courts will recognize the point at which, for Sixth Amendment purposes, statements in response to interrogations become testimonial. Through in limine procedure, they should redact or exclude the portions of any statement that have become testimonial, as they do, for example, with unduly prejudicial portions of otherwise admissible evidence. Id. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2277. {14} We need not decide whether an examination by a SANE nurse is analogous to a 911 call, within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause, because a SANE nurse examination is not typically designed primarily to establish or prove some past fact, but to describe current circumstances requiring police assistance. Id. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2276 (internal quotation marks omitted). On the facts in this record, Defendant's arguments that the evidence was testimonial within the meaning of Davis have merit. {15} The victim's narrative, read verbatim by the SANE nurse, includes two portions, that while relevant to medical treatment, accuse Defendant of specific criminal acts. For example, the narrative includes the following: That's when he sexually assaulted me on the floor. He took off my pants and underwear and penetrated me. I asked Jessica, and this is me asking Jessica, I asked Jessica what she meant by penetrated me. Jessica replied, and this is her words, `penis in my vagina.' End quote. Then Jessica continued, and this is in quotes, I kept telling him no and to stop. I don't remember after that. End quote. I asked Jessica if Anthony was wearing a condom and she replied no. Other portions of the statement also could be viewed as relevant to seeking medical treatment, but also accuse Defendant of specific criminal acts: Then he started to choke me. He put his hands around my neck and was on top of me. I was on the bed. I don't remember what happened after that. I might have passed out. . . . He kissed me and told me to tell the police the marks on my neck were from rough sex. {16} In Davis, the jury did not hear the entire 911 call. The Court suggested that the questions posed to the victim by the 911 operator might have evolved into an interrogation and those answers should have been redacted or excluded, but that any error was harmless. Id. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2277-78. The victim in Davis, however, was responding to individual, specific questions posed by the 911 operator. Id. Here, the victim was asked to tell the SANE nurse what happened, so the SANE nurse would know how to proceed. Her narrative identifies Defendant and accuses him of specific criminal acts. A different sort of redaction is necessary. {17} Davis emphasized that the victim's answers arose out of an ongoing emergency, while the Hammon statements arose out of an after-the-fact inquiry. Id. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2276-79. In this appeal, the examination occurred several weeks after the assault and with the assistance and encouragement of Officer Lewandowski, who made the appointment. Under these circumstances, the portions of the victim's narrative specifically accusing Defendant of sexual assault and other charges should have been excluded. The facts in this record are more analogous to the facts of Hammon than Davis. {18} We agree with the State that redaction of portions of the narrative might have been appropriate, but the State has not identified portions of the narrative that might have been likely candidates for redaction. Under these circumstances, we affirm the Court of Appeals' determination that the portion of the SANE nurse testimony that recited the victim's narrative should have been excluded. No basis for redaction of that narrative has been identified.