Court Opinion

ID: 9533840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:34:56.628789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:11.622956
License: Public Domain

TURSI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Had not the supreme court spoken in W.C.L. v. People, 685 P.2d 176 (Colo.1984), I would find persuasive the reasoning of the majority as it applies to statements of the child to the physician and clinical social worker elicited by them solely for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment. However, we are bound by W.C.L.
In W.C.L., the supreme court specifically noted: “The court admitted the victim’s statements to the doctor under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule, codified at CRE 803(4), on the basis that the medical diagnosis in this case necessarily included the source of the injuries as well as their nature.” The supreme court then went on to say: “We agree with the Court of Appeals that the victim’s statements do not fall within the exceptions to the hearsay rule codified in the Colorado Rules of Evidence.”
Thus, the holding in W. C.L. is dispositive. I would therefore reverse and remand for retrial.