Court Opinion

ID: 9610386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:40:29.637291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:58.657817
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
dissenting.
Defendant makes a point that has serious ramifications. He argues that OEC 803(4) is inapplicable because
“the child was examined by Dr. Bays primarily to find medical evidence that abuse had occurred. She was not the child’s treating physician and this was not a part of any regularly scheduled visits between patient and physician.”
Statements that qualify for admissibility under OEC 803(4) do so because, having been made for the purpose of obtaining medical diagnosis and treatment, they are deemed reliable and trustworthy. Statements that are procured for the purpose of producing evidence in court lack that foundation. The record in this case is absolutely clear that the child was *564taken to Bays, not for medical treatment, but only for the purpose of obtaining a diagnosis that she was a sexually abused child and obtaining evidence that defendant was the one who had abused her.1 Although Bays may have told her that she was being examined for medical purposes, purportedly to qualify her statements under OEC 803(4), I am concerned about the implications that flow from the use of the hearsay exception in this manner. I expect that we now will see many hearsay statements admitted in evidence under OEC 803(4), just because the physician, at the instance of inventive counsel, said the magic words to the declarant as a predicate for the examination.
OEC 803(4) was never intended to be a vehicle by which to manufacture evidence. See Louisell and Mueller, Federal Evidence 596, § 444 (1980). As interpreted by the majority, once the statement qualifies under OEC 803(4), it necessarily follows that defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated. The result is that a defendant may be con*565victed without being able to cross-examine his accuser on the basis of unsworn testimony of an out-of-court declarant procured by agents of the state whose interest was to obtain evidence, not medical diagnosis or treatment. Surely, OEC 803(4) does not permit that.

 Dr. Bays is employed with the CARES (Child Abuse Response and Evaluation Services) Programs, at Emanuel Hospital, Portland. She explained why it was created:
“Well there was a meeting of the Multnomah Child Abuse Coalition, and I think it was in 1985, because there was concern that when there’s a question about whether a child has been abused, that the child gets taken to many different places, and interviewed many times, and often examined many times, and there was felt to be a need for a centralized assessment center with people who were professionally trained, both in talking to children and examining children, to help the mandated agencies, investigative agencies, help in their investigations in deciding whether a child has been abused or not.
“So that meeting was held, and I think there were about 35 people there from the community who talked about what kind of assessment center they would like, and it was agreed that they would like an association with a hospital, and then we formed a committee that worked further on the idea, and eventually it was decided it would be Emmanuel [sic] Hospital.” (Emphasis supplied.)
These questions and answers are from redirect examination by the state:
“Q When you see children, how do you get referrals to your clinic?
“A They come in a variety of ways. They come through Children’s Protective Services, through law enforcement, through parents themselves, although usually we ask the parents to go back through the system which is CSD and law enforcement, through private pediatricians or private therapists.
“Q That are referred to you?
“A That are referring children to us, yes.
<(* * * * *
“Q * * * Would you say that the majority of children that you see come in through Children’s Services Division or through law enforcement agencies?
“A That’s correct.” (Emphasis supplied.)