Opinion ID: 1044002
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Victim's Statements to Ms. Cogdill

Text: Ms. Cogdill was the registered nurse who attended to Ms. Lackey at the emergency room. She testified that the victim told her that an assailant had tried to rape her with his hand, had choked her, and had put her to the ground and then bent her legs up over her head. The victim also reported a headache to Ms. Cogdill. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that these statements were made for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment and were nontestimonial. See Cannon, 254 S.W.3d at 303-04 (holding that rape victim's statements to emergency room personnel about the rape were nontestimonial); see also Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533 n. 2, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) ([M]edical reports created for treatment purposes . . . would not be testimonial under our decision today.). The trial court admitted properly this testimony pursuant to the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis and treatment. See Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4). [9] Ms. Cogdill also testified that Ms. Lackey told her that her attacker was a friend of her son's. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' analysis of Defendant's complaint about this testimony: Before trial, the State and defense counsel agreed that only the portions of the victim's statements at the emergency room directly related to her treatment would be admitted. The parties agreed to exclude statements related to the identity of the attacker. However, at trial, the prosecutor asked Ms. Cogdill what the victim told her at the hospital, and she responded, Was attempted to be raped by son's friend. . . . The defense did not object, although the issue was raised in the motion for new trial. Without determining whether the Defendant waived the issue by failing to object contemporaneously, we hold that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless. The jury had already heard Mr. Trentham's testimony that the victim kept saying that it was somebody on a can crew that her son knew. The evidence in question did not add any new information. See T[enn.] R. A[pp.] P. 36(b). Parker, 2010 WL 3706090, at . Defendant is not entitled to any relief on this issue.