## Facts

- A six-year-old child (T.K.), living in foster care, disclosed sexual abuse by her biological father, Edward Richard Krasky, after her foster mother asked about sexualized behavior.
- Police received a child-protection report and, with child-protection personnel, referred T.K. to a child-abuse evaluation clinic.
- A nurse practitioner at the clinic conducted a videotaped interview and a medical examination; two social workers observed from another room.
- The nurse told T.K. the purpose was to check her health and that telling the truth was important; T.K. described repeated sexual abuse by Krasky.
- The nurse recommended psychotherapy, and the State charged Krasky with multiple counts of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- The trial court found T.K. incompetent to testify and therefore unavailable, and excluded her statements to the nurse as testimonial under the Confrontation Clause; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether T.K.’s statements to a nurse practitioner during a child-abuse medical assessment were “testimonial” under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause when the evaluation was coordinated with law enforcement and recorded.
2. If the statements were nontestimonial, whether the Confrontation Clause nevertheless barred their admission when T.K. was unavailable to testify.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed.
- The court held that T.K.’s statements to the nurse practitioner were nontestimonial.
- Because the statements were nontestimonial, the Confrontation Clause did not bar their admission despite T.K.’s unavailability.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings; evidentiary admissibility under hearsay rules and other requirements was left to the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
- Whether a statement is testimonial turns on an objective assessment of the statement’s primary purpose.
- Statements made primarily for medical assessment, diagnosis, or treatment are generally nontestimonial even if the information may later be useful to a prosecution.
- Law-enforcement coordination, recording, and third-party observation do not automatically convert a medical interview into a police interrogation for Confrontation Clause purposes.
- A ruling that statements are nontestimonial resolves only the Confrontation Clause issue; admissibility still depends on applicable hearsay exceptions and evidentiary rules.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a child’s abuse disclosures to a nurse practitioner during a clinic-based medical assessment were nontestimonial because the primary purpose was health evaluation and follow-up care, so the Confrontation Clause did not require exclusion; the case returned to the trial court to address any remaining evidentiary issues.


State v. Krasky, 736 N.W.2d 636 (Minn. 2007)