Court Opinion

ID: 9553500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:30:30.206827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:20.288283
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
concur in results.
I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case, however, I cannot join in parts of the analysis provided.
Initially, the Court finds a reliability determination of 12 O.S.Supp.1984, § 2803.1 evidence is not required for admissibility at preliminary hearing. A reading of the plain language of Section 2803.1 reveals statements of the type identified in the statute are “admissible in criminal and juvenile proceedings in the Courts in this *672state if’ the criteria set forth in the statute are met, this includes the reliability determination. (emphasis added) Therefore, the issue is admissibility, not weight and credibility.
I agree with the Court’s adoption of a two-part test for determining if the proffered statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. However, it must be remembered that the “statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment” exception contained in Section 2803(4) is not restricted to children twelve (12) years of age or younger as are the provisions of Section 2803.1 evidence. The Court’s analysis, while tailored to the facts of this case, gives the impression it is limited to those facts. Practitioners and trial judges must ensure the application of the rules applicable to Section 2803.1 and Section 2803(4) evidence are not skewed or confused. The predicates to admissibility are different and the requirements for use are dictated by the predicate provided by the evidence.