What can a sexual assault nurse say to a jury regarding a rape exam report?
State v. JSC. New Jersey Appellate Division unreported decision decided February 27, 2019.
Submitted by New Jersey Sex Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In this Camden city, Camden county New Jersey decision the defendant was charged with two different aggravated sexual assaults with his ex girlfriend in his family’s home Who is also residing in the same family home. The jury convicted the defendant of one aggravated sexual assault and did not convicted of a different sexual assault. The victim went to work told coworkers of the first assault and then after the second assault told her family and coworkers again in person and through texting.
Issue: Is medical evidence contained in a sexual assault nurse exam SANE report admissible to a jury in a criminal trial?
This type of evidence is covered by New Jersey rule of evidence 803(C)(4). This rule of evidence deals with hearsay statements contained in a medical record. Evidence related to and made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment are admissible and relevant however “blame casting statements” contained in those medical records must be excluded and not presented to the jury because they are hearsay statements. In other words, they are statements contained in the medical record that are being admitted for the truth of the matter asserted… That the victim communicated to the nursing staff that a specific person perform sexually assaults of conduct….. and that was memorialized in the medical record. However, this specific hearsay exception allows out of court statements made in good faith for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment described in a medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain or sensation, or the inception of general character of the victim to the extent of source of injury are allowed to the extent said statements are reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
The foundation of the rule stems from the inherent truth assumed that a patient/victim will communicate to a treating physician or medical provider because they are invested in the successful treatment to provide relief. In other words, these statements are presumed in the eyes of the court to possess inherent reliability from the patient because they are seeking to be properly and accurately treated.
Nevertheless, the court has carved out a prohibiting exception when the medical professional was not consulted for treatment but rather for the gathering of evidence alone. As a result this court and other courts must study the subjective intent of the patient at the time of the examination in order to make a determination as to whether the statements contained in the medical record will be admissible. There must be a determination made as to whether physical or mental health treatment was warranted at the time of the SANE nurse exam. This must take place in a Rule 104 hearing outside the presence of the jury.
In this case the appellate division ruled the state failed to meet its burden to establish that the statements made by the victim were for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment. Remember, it is the proponent of the hearsay statement who carries the burden to establish the per requisite of admissibility. However the state failure to meet this burden, and the evidence introduced to the jury, was not fatal in the case and there was no plain error by the trial judge admitting said evidence. The court ruled this way because they believe the defense attorney was enabling the evidence to be heard by the jury as a tactical matter to attack the victims credibility. The appellate division will not second-guess a defense attorneys decision on what evidence it comes in and not in a post conviction relief application.
