## Facts

- Michael Arnold was charged with raping his four-year-old stepdaughter, M.A., after his wife found him in the child’s locked bedroom late at night with his boxers partially off and the child’s underwear around her ankles.
- M.A. was taken to a hospital and, the next day, to a child-advocacy center where medical professionals and investigators coordinate child-abuse responses.
- At the center, a social worker interviewed M.A. in a recorded session while acting in dual roles: gathering information for law enforcement and obtaining information for medical diagnosis and treatment.
- During the interview, M.A. described sexual acts using child terms; a nurse practitioner later examined M.A. and found genital trauma consistent with recent sexual abuse.
- M.A. did not testify at trial; the State introduced the recorded interview and medical evidence.
- Arnold objected that admitting M.A.’s recorded statements violated the Confrontation Clause because he could not cross-examine her.

## Issues

1. Whether a child’s recorded statements to an interviewer at a child-advocacy center are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes when the interviewer serves both forensic and medical functions.
2. Whether statements aimed at medical diagnosis and treatment may be admitted as nontestimonial when the child is unavailable to testify.
3. Whether statements aimed primarily at forensic investigation must be excluded as testimonial absent cross-examination, and what remedy applies if they were admitted.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the interviewer acted in dual capacities and the interview could not be treated as wholly testimonial or wholly nontestimonial.
- The court held that M.A.’s statements describing the sexual acts were made for medical diagnosis and treatment, were nontestimonial, and were admissible.
- The court held that other portions focused on reconstructing the incident (e.g., details about locking the door, where family members were, clothing and its removal) served primarily forensic purposes, were testimonial, and were inadmissible because M.A. was unavailable for cross-examination.
- The court partially affirmed and partially reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for a determination whether the admission of the testimonial portions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Statements to child-advocacy-center interviewers that serve primarily a forensic or investigative purpose are testimonial and inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause when the declarant is unavailable for cross-examination.
- Statements made for medical diagnosis and treatment are generally nontestimonial and may be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause, even when elicited during a child-advocacy-center interview.
- Courts must assess the primary purpose of particular statements within a dual-purpose interview and may admit medical-purpose portions while excluding forensic-purpose portions.
- When testimonial statements are erroneously admitted, the conviction may stand only if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court required a statement-by-statement Confrontation Clause analysis of child-advocacy-center interviews: medical-diagnosis statements are admissible as nontestimonial, but primarily forensic statements are testimonial and must be excluded if the child does not testify, subject to harmless-error review.


State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St. 3d 290, 933 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 2010)