Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Galindo v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017See Galindo v. United States, 630 A.2d 202, 210 (D.C. 1993) (―Under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule, statements made by a patient for purposes of obtaining medical treatment are admissible for their truth . . . .‖). 2017See Galindo v. United States, 630 A.2d 202, 210 (D.C. 1993) ("Under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule, statements made by a patient for purposes of obtaining medical treatment are admissible for their truth .... ”). | 10 | 12 |
Sullivan v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005Galindo, 680 A.2d at 210; Sullivan v. United States, 404 A.2d 153, 158 (D.C.1979) (quoting McCoRmick on Evidence § 292 (2d ed. E. 1993Even if statements of fault are generally excluded from the medical diagnosis exception, see id. at 159 & n. 11, a statement by a child or her parent that the child has been sexually assaulted by someone who is effectively a member of the child's immediate household is admissible when “reasonably pertinent to treatment,” because the injury involves more than mere physical injury, but has psychological and emotional consequences as well. | 3 | 5 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003LEXIS 220 (statement made by a child to a doctor at Children’s Hospital after abuse by a family member admitted under the treatment exception to the hearsay rule); Jones v. United States, 813 A.2d 220, 226 (D.C.2002) (" 'Under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule, statements made by a patient for purposes of obtaining medical treatment are admissible for their truth because the law is willing to assume that a declarant seeking medical help will speak truthfully to medical personnel.' ") (quoting Galindo v. United States, 630 A.2d 202, 210 (D.C.1993)). . 2003LEXIS 220 (statement made by a child to a doctor at Children's Hospital after abuse by a family member admitted under the treatment exception to the hearsay rule); Jones v. United States, 813 A.2d 220, 226 (D.C.2002) ("`Under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule, statements made by a patient for purposes of obtaining medical treatment are admissible for their truth because the law is willing to assume that a declarant seeking medical help will speak truthfully to medical personnel.'") (quoting Galindo v. United States, 630 A.2d 202, 210 (D.C.1993)). [13] Prior to the entrance of | 3 | 3 |
In Re Ca. S.green2 sentences2005“Under the rule as stated in Sullivan , therefore, the medical diagnosis exception does not apply.” In re Ca.S., 828 A.2d at 191 . 17 Nevertheless, we see no reason to reverse the trial court on this point, since N.P. herself testified that she and her sister were both present during incidents of abuse. 2005In In re Ca.S. we expressly rejected an argument that we should "construe the medical diagnosis exception broadly, especially in cases involving children.” 828 A.2d at 191 . . | 1 | 3 |
Kotteakos v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) (defining harmless error). 2012See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) (defining harmless error). | 1 | 1 |
Randolph v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007Randolph v. United States, 882 A.2d 210, 218 (D.C.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Cassidy v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430, 437-38 (8th Cir.1985) (identity of abuser may affect nature and extent of psychological problems caused by child abuse; rule “banning statements of fault is premised on the assumption that the injury is purely somatic”); cf. Cassidy v. State, 74 Md.App. 1 , 536 A.2d 666, 683 (1988). 1993See United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430, 437-38 (8th Cir.1985) (identity of abuser may affect nature and extent of psychological problems caused by child abuse; rule “banning statements of fault is premised on the assumption that the injury is purely somatic”); cf. Cassidy v. State, 74 Md.App. 1 , 536 A.2d 666, 683 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Eneas Lavern Nickgreen1 sentence1993Sullivan, supra, 404 A.2d at 158 ; see also United States v. Iron Thunder, 714 F.2d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir.1983) (doctor’s testimony about adult rape victim’s statements admissible); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 84 (8th Cir.1980) (two-part test for admissibility), cer t. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir.1979) (upholding admission of doctor’s testimony that child described sexual assault). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John Louis Iron Shell, Jr.green1 sentence1993Sullivan, supra, 404 A.2d at 158 ; see also United States v. Iron Thunder, 714 F.2d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir.1983) (doctor’s testimony about adult rape victim’s statements admissible); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 84 (8th Cir.1980) (two-part test for admissibility), cer t. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir.1979) (upholding admission of doctor’s testimony that child described sexual assault). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Anthony Myron Iron Thunder, United States of America v. Richard Lee Hanleygreen1 sentence1993Sullivan, supra, 404 A.2d at 158 ; see also United States v. Iron Thunder, 714 F.2d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir.1983) (doctor’s testimony about adult rape victim’s statements admissible); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 84 (8th Cir.1980) (two-part test for admissibility), cer t. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir.1979) (upholding admission of doctor’s testimony that child described sexual assault). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Harvey M. Renvillegreen1 sentence1993See United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430, 437-38 (8th Cir.1985) (identity of abuser may affect nature and extent of psychological problems caused by child abuse; rule “banning statements of fault is premised on the assumption that the injury is purely somatic”); cf. Cassidy v. State, 74 Md.App. 1 , 536 A.2d 666, 683 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. United States
green
2 sentences2007In Jenkins v. United States, this court questioned the scope of the Galindo ruling and observed that Galindo "did not come to grips with the evidentiary question [of] whether a child's second-level hearsay description of her sexual assault contained in a medical record is admissible under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule” and “a more careful reading [of Galindo] would conclude that this court left that question open.” 870 A.2d at 38 . . 2007However, as discussed infra, the fact that a complaint was made would serve to corroborate the occurrence of the offense, however proven, as well as the trustworthiness of a confession, as here. [15] In Jenkins v. United States , this court questioned the scope of the Galindo ruling and observed that Galindo "did not come to grips with the evidentiary question [of] whether a child's second-level hearsay description of her sexual assault contained in a medical record is admissible under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule" and "a more careful reading [of Galindo ] would conclude | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Matter of NH
green
2 sentences2005Both parties also cite In re N.H., 569 A.2d 1179 (D.C.1990), but it is not pertinent. 2005The court ordered the father to appear at a hearing and show cause why he should not be held in contempt; he did not appear, and a bench warrant was issued. [17] In In re Ca.S. we expressly rejected an argument that we should "construe the medical diagnosis exception broadly, especially in cases involving children." 828 A.2d at 191 . [18] Both parties also cite In re N.H., 569 A.2d 1179 (D.C.1990), but it is not pertinent. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Owensby v. United States
green
1 sentence1993Sullivan, supra, 404 A.2d at 158 ; see also United States v. Iron Thunder, 714 F.2d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir.1983) (doctor’s testimony about adult rape victim’s statements admissible); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 84 (8th Cir.1980) (two-part test for admissibility), cer t. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir.1979) (upholding admission of doctor’s testimony that child described sexual assault). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Goolsby v. Virginia
green
1 sentence1993Sullivan, supra, 404 A.2d at 158 ; see also United States v. Iron Thunder, 714 F.2d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir.1983) (doctor’s testimony about adult rape victim’s statements admissible); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 84 (8th Cir.1980) (two-part test for admissibility), cer t. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir.1979) (upholding admission of doctor’s testimony that child described sexual assault). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Eades v. United States
green
1 sentence1993Sullivan, supra, 404 A.2d at 158 ; see also United States v. Iron Thunder, 714 F.2d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir.1983) (doctor’s testimony about adult rape victim’s statements admissible); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 84 (8th Cir.1980) (two-part test for admissibility), cer t. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir.1979) (upholding admission of doctor’s testimony that child described sexual assault). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.