State v. Roberts

State v. Roberts · Idaho Court of Appeals · April 20, 2023 · No. 49039

Summary

The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed Jason M. Roberts’s convictions for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen. The majority held that statements made during a CARES forensic interview were admissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(4) because, under the totality of the circumstances, they were made for a medical purpose. Chief Judge Lorello dissented, concluding that the statements were not made for medical diagnosis or treatment and that their admission was reversible error.

Court
Idaho Court of Appeals
Writing for the Court
Huskey, Judge; Gratton, Judge; Lorello, Chief Judge
Jurisdiction
Idaho
Decision date
April 20, 2023
Docket number
49039
Procedural posture
Roberts appealed his judgment of conviction for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen, challenging the admission of a recorded CARES interview under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception to the hearsay rule.
Standard of review
Admission of evidence is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. The appellate court examines whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, acted within the boundaries of its discretion, applied the applicable legal standards consistently, and reached its decision through an exercise of reason. The trial court's factual finding regarding a child's intent under Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(4) is reviewed for substantial evidence and will not be overturned if supported by substantial and competent evidence.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Jason M. Roberts v. State of Idaho
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

hearsayevidencecriminal procedureappellate procedureharmless error

Practice areas

Criminal lawEvidenceAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the child's statements during the CARES interview were made for, and reasonably pertinent to, medical diagnosis or treatment under Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(4).
  2. Whether the district court's determination that the child had a medical purpose in making the statements was a factual finding subject to review for substantial evidence.
  3. Whether any error in admitting the CARES interview was harmless.

Holdings

  1. A child's intent in making statements for purposes of Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(4) is a factual determination for the trial court, reviewed on appeal for substantial evidence.
  2. Under the totality of the circumstances, the child's statements during the CARES interview were made for a medical purpose and were admissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(4).
  3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recording of the CARES interview.

Key quotations

Thus, Christensen holds that where a CARES interview is conducted in conformity with the generally accepted standards for such interviews, a child’s statements made during the interview are inherently reliable. (6)
In light of the deference given to the trial court, and the language of Christensen, we are constrained to hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the child’s statements were made for purposes of medical treatment or examination and, thus, were admissible pursuant to I.R.E. 803(4). (9)

Factual background

Roberts's fifteen-year-old son disclosed to his mother that Roberts had sexually abused him beginning when he was approximately seven or eight years old, with the last alleged incident occurring about two and one-half years before a CARES interview. During the interview, the child described the abuse and disclosed suicidal thoughts and thoughts of self-harm. After the interview, the child underwent a limited medical examination but declined genital and anal examination and testing for sexually transmitted infections. The district court admitted the recorded interview, and the jury convicted Roberts of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen.

Procedural history

A grand jury indicted Roberts on two counts under Idaho Code section 18-1508. The district court admitted the recorded CARES interview under Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(4), the jury found Roberts guilty on both counts, and the district court entered judgment of conviction. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…