Hartsfield v. Commonwealth (2009)

See, e.g., State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535 , 264 P.3d 461, 488 (2011) ("We conclude the SANE was acting as an agent of law enforcement when performing the role of collecting evidence.”); aff'g 42 Kan.App.2d 12 , 208 P.3d 774, 786 (2009) (concluding primary purpose of SANE nurse examination "was to collect and preserve evidence for later use in the prosecution of a crime, not for medical diagnosis or treatment”); Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky.2009) ("The S…

Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244-45 (Ky. 2009); People v. Vargas, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 588-89 (Cal.Ct.App. 2009); State v. Romero, 156 P.3d 694, 698-99 (N.M. 2007); State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287, 304-06 (Tenn. 2008); United States v. Gardinier, 65 M.J. 60, 65-66 (C.A.A.F. 2007); Medina v. Nevada, 143 P.3d 471, 476 (Nev. 2006). ¶13 For this case, we must decide whether, considering all circumstances viewed objectively, the "primary purpose" of A.T.'s statemen…

Some asked whether the interview more closely resembled the police interviews in Crawford and Hammon than the 911 call in Davis, see, e.g., Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky. 2009) (“In the case at bar, the interview of M.B. by the . . . nurse bears more similarity to a police interview, as in Crawford and Hammon, than to the questioning conducted in the 911 call in Davis.”)—or similarly, whether an objective person would believe the questioner is an agent …

In Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 241, 244-45 (Ky.2009), the court held a rape victim’s *167 statements to a trained “sexual assault nurse examiner” (“SANE”) at a hospital were testimonial because the nurse was an “active participant in the formal criminal investigation.” The court found significant that the “nurse’s questioning involved past events, was not related to an ongoing emergency, and took on the nature of a formal interview.” Id. at 245 .

Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 245 (Ky.2009).

We disagree. “[T]he Confrontation Clause precludes admission of the statements of a witness unavailable to testify at trial if the witness’ out-of-court statements were ‘testimonial,’ unless the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.” Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Ky. 2009) (citation omitted). “[T]he threshold examination to determine a Confrontation Clause violation is whether the proffered out-of-court statement was testimonial . .…

Among other things, courts have considered the presence and involvement of law enforcement, the time elapsed since the assault and the need for medical treatment, the formality of the exchange, and whether the statements and actions of the participants objectively reflect a focus on the prosecution of a crime. 6 While those same factors may not __________________________________________________________ 6 See, e.g., State v. Tsosie, 516 P.3d 1116, 1140 (N.M. 2022) (“The relev…

But we acknowledged in Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, that whether the witness’ statement was made in the present-tense or recounting a past event was merely one of several factors the Supreme Court commands to be considered to determine whether a statement was testimonial. 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky. 2011).

The caller appeared to be primarily summoning aid for T.J., who was screaming and locked outside of 21 Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Ky. 2009) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)). 22 Nunn v. Commonwealth, 461 S.W.3d 741, 750 (Ky. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 23 Rankins v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 830 (2006)). 24 Fisher v. Commonwealth, 620 S.W.3d 1 , 6 (Ky. 2021) …

Further, the 42 Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Ky. 2009). 21 supervisor did not testify about the interviewer’s statements, observations, or opinions.

This exception applies even when the declarant is available as a witness. 15 Id. 16 Although Beasley’s brief suggests that is an issue this Court may consider, Beasley conceded that the statements were excited utterances at the trial court level. 17 Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 245 (Ky. 2009). 18 See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 54 (2004). 19 See Fisher v. Commonwealth, 620 S.W.3d 1 , 7 (Ky. 2021). 13 In Crawford, the Court explained that the text of t…

Further, the 42 Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Ky. 2009). 21 supervisor did not testify about the interviewer’s statements, observations, or opinions.

This Court has held that “statements that tell ‘what is happening’ are nontestimonial, while statements that tell ‘what happened’ are testimonial.”23 And we consider 21 Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Ky. 2009) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)). 22 Nunn v. Commonwealth, 461 S.W.3d 741, 750 (Ky. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 23 Rankins v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 83…

See Hartsfield 14 v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky. 2009) (“We believe their function of 15 evidence gathering, combined with their close relationships with law enforcement, 16 renders SANE nurses’ interviews the functional equivalent of police questioning.”); 17 see also Medina v. State, 143 P.3d 471, 476 (Nev. 2006) (defining a SANE as a 18 “police operative” because a SANE “gathers evidence for the prosecution for 19 possible use in later prosecutions,” thus leadi…

See Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky. 2009) (“We believe their function of evidence gathering, combined with their close relationships with law enforcement, renders SANE nurses’ interviews the functional equivalent of police questioning.”); see also Medina v. State, 143 P.3d 471, 476 (Nev. 2006) (defining a SANE as a “police operative” because a SANE “gathers evidence for the prosecution for possible use in later prosecutions,” thus leading “an objective w…

Sims cites Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, in which this Court held that the admission of statements made to an investigative nurse by a sexual assault victim, who died after the return of the indictment but before trial, were testimonial in nature and thus their introduction violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause since the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the deceased 20 victim about the statements. 277 S.W.3d 239, 241 (Ky. 2009).

(Emphasis added.) The administrative code further explains that 7 See Davis, 547 U.S. at 823 n.2 (911 operators may be police agents when they conduct interrogations of callers). 8 Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky. 2009) (“We believe their function of evidence gathering, combined with their close relationships with law enforcement, renders SANE nurses’ interviews the functional equivalent of police questioning.”); see also Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346, 35…

See Bobadilla v. Carlson, 575 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2009) (child victim’s statements to a social worker were testimonial because the interrogation was “initiated by a police officer to obtain statements for use during a criminal investigation”); Hartsfield v. Com., 277 S.W.3d 239, 245 (Ky. 2009) (statements to nurse were testimonial where nurse’s questioning involved past events, was not related to an ongoing emergency, and took on the nature of a formal interview); State …

This extends to statements made to “persons who are not police officers, but who may be regarded as agents of law enforcement.” Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky. 2009).

This extends to statements made to “persons who are not police officers, but who may be regarded as agents of law enforcement.” Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Ky.2009).

Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Ky.2009).

Cf. Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 245 (Ky.2009) (finding that a SANE nurse’s interview was the “functional equivalent of police questioning”); James v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 189 (Ky.2012).

This Court has held that “statements taken from [a rape victim] during her interview with the SANE nurse were testimonial in nature.” Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 245 (Ky.2009).

App. 2007) (child victim’s statements to a “ ‘Child Protection Team’ ” nurse 1 week after sexual attack were testimonial where the forensic examination was conducted at law enforcement’s behest, a statute required the nurse to perform medical and forensic examinations and serve as a witness at trial, the primary purpose of the examination was to gather information for potential criminal prosecution, and there was no ongoing emergency; the court noted there was no indication …

But see Hernandez v. State, 946 So.2d 1270, 1280 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007) (finding statements by sexual assault victim to nurse testimonial); Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244-45 (Ky.2009) (same); Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346 , 143 P.3d 471, 476 (2006) (same).

Emergency rooms routinely perform these procedures, and a witness in this situation could reasonably believe that the . . . unit’s medical examination, including the incident history statement, serves primarily a medical function.[54] In distinguishing an emergency room nurse’s “primary” and “secondary” functions, the Stahl court answered the majority’s concern that “[i]t is utterly unclear how a court would apply the ‘primary purpose’ test outside the Davis context to a cas…

Hartsfield v. Com., 277 S.W.3d 239, 244-45 (Ky. 2009).

See Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239 (Ky.2009) (spontaneous, informal statements unsolicited by law enforcement or its surrogate not testimonial under Crawford .).

See Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 244-45 (Ky.2009); State v. Romero, 141 N.M. 403, 407 (N.M.2007); Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346, 354-55 (Nev.2006); State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287, 305 (Tenn.2008), quoting Davis at 822 ; State v. Miller, 42 Kan.App.2d 12, 29 (2009).

This made the questioning “indistinguishable from the police investigation,” and therefore the social worker was “subject to the same constraints as a police officer.” Id. at 164-65; see also Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239, 245 (Ky.2009) (finding that a SANE nurse’s interview was the “functional equivalent of police questioning”).