Abstract

Comment: Evidence
In State v. Robinson, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a victim's statements describing the crime and identifying the abuser in a child abuse case are admissible under Arizona Rule of Evidence 803(4), the medical treatment or diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule. Robinson was convicted by a jury of two counts of child molestation and two counts of sexual conduct with a minor. On appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, Robinson argued that statements made by the victim to the treating psychologist were improperly admitted by the lower court. Robinson maintained that Rule 803(4) prohibited the admission of those hearsay statements that described the crime and attributed fault. However, the supreme court upheld the admissibility of these statements.

The Robinson court reached its decision by applying the two prong test for the admissibility of such statements developed in United States v. Iron Shell. The court applied the two-prong test to statements that described the crime and statements that described the criminal. Under the first prong of the test, the court found that statements describing the crime were reasonably relied upon by the psychologist in formulating a diagnosis or treatment and were reliable because of the lack of motive other than that of a patient seeking treatment. Second, and most significant, the court found the statements describing or identifying the criminal admissible. The court noted that the treatment of child sexual abuse cases depends on the identity of the assailant. Additionally, the court determined that the statements were trustworthy because the doctor and patient were motivated by the desire to give and receive proper treatment.

This Comment reviews the traditional application of Rule 803(4) in child abuse cases. It then examines the rationale underlying Rule 803(4) and the Iron Shell test. Finally, it discusses the application of the Iron Shell test in Robinson and the problems that may result from the Robinson court's reasoning.

How to Cite