## Facts

- David Alfred Blake was charged with two counts of second-degree sexual assault of his minor stepdaughter under Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-303(a)(vi).
- After a report of abuse, a state investigator and a sheriff’s officer interviewed the victim at her high school and took her to a hospital emergency room for a sexual-assault examination.
- During the examination, Dr. Mary Bowers questioned the victim about the assault, including the perpetrator’s identity, explaining this information was needed for diagnosis and treatment, including assessment of emotional condition and safety risks.
- The victim told Dr. Bowers that Blake, her stepfather, had forced sexual intercourse on her numerous times over several years, including a recent incident in the family home.
- Later the same day, law enforcement interviewed Blake; he confessed to sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter over a period of years and signed a written statement.
- At trial, the victim did not testify and was not called by either party; the prosecution relied on Blake’s confession and Dr. Bowers’s testimony recounting the victim’s statements, along with corroborating testimony.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted the victim’s statements through Dr. Bowers under W.R.E. 803(4) (statements for medical diagnosis or treatment).
- A jury convicted Blake on both counts.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting the victim’s statements to the examining physician—particularly identification of Blake as the assailant—violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause when the victim did not testify.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the statutory element that Blake occupied and used a “position of authority” over the victim.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the victim’s statements to Dr. Bowers, including identification of Blake, were admissible under W.R.E. 803(4).
- The court held admission of those statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception was treated as firmly rooted under then-governing doctrine, and the statements also showed reliability.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Blake was in a position of authority over his stepdaughter and used that authority to cause submission.

## Legal Principles

- Under W.R.E. 803(4), hearsay is admissible if made for medical diagnosis or treatment and reasonably pertinent to that purpose.
- In child sexual-abuse cases, statements identifying the perpetrator may be “reasonably pertinent” to diagnosis or treatment when the perpetrator’s relationship to the child affects medical and psychological care and assessment of ongoing risk.
- The court applied a two-part framework for W.R.E. 803(4): (1) the declarant’s motive must be consistent with obtaining diagnosis/treatment, and (2) the statement must be the type reasonably relied upon by medical providers for diagnosis/treatment.
- Under pre-*Crawford* Confrontation Clause doctrine, admission of statements within a firmly rooted hearsay exception generally satisfies reliability; alternatively, reliability may be shown by particular guarantees of trustworthiness based on context.
- For second-degree sexual assault under Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-303(a)(vi), the State must prove the defendant was in a “position of authority” over the victim and used that authority to cause submission; a stepfather in the household may satisfy this element based on the relationship and circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Blake’s convictions, concluding that the victim’s identification of her stepfather to a treating physician during a sexual-assault examination was admissible for medical diagnosis or treatment and, under the Confrontation Clause doctrine then in effect, sufficiently reliable despite the victim’s absence at trial; it further held the evidence supported the statutory “position of authority” element.


Blake v. State, 933 P.2d 474 (Wyo. 1997)