## Facts

- Michael A. Lawrence was convicted of offenses based on the sexual abuse of his 12-year-old niece, D.M.
- After D.M. disclosed the abuse to her parents, they notified the police.
- D.M.’s parents scheduled an appointment with D.M.’s regular pediatrician, Dr. Janet D. Barnes.
- At that visit, Dr. Barnes examined D.M. for the purpose of medical care, took samples, and tested D.M. for sexually transmitted diseases.
- Dr. Barnes later informed D.M.’s mother of the test results and referred D.M. to a therapist for counseling.
- Separately, the police scheduled D.M. to be examined by Dr. Katheryne A. Coffman, the director of the sexual-abuse program at a local children’s hospital.
- Dr. Coffman’s examination was arranged mainly to gather forensic evidence; no treatment was recommended and follow-up was not expected.
- During both examinations, D.M. described the abuse.
- At trial, the State called both Dr. Barnes and Dr. Coffman, and each testified about what D.M. told them.
- Lawrence objected that D.M.’s out-of-court statements were hearsay, but the trial court overruled the objections and admitted both physicians’ testimony.
- Lawrence appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the doctors’ testimony recounting D.M.’s statements.

## Issues

1. Whether D.M.’s statements to Dr. Barnes were admissible under La. Code Evid. art. 803(4) as statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
2. Whether D.M.’s statements to Dr. Coffman, whose examination was arranged by police for forensic purposes, were admissible under La. Code Evid. art. 803(4).
3. If any portion of Dr. Coffman’s testimony was admitted in error, whether the error required reversal or was harmless.

## Decision

- The court held D.M.’s statements to Dr. Barnes were admissible under La. Code Evid. art. 803(4) because the visit was for medical care, including examination, testing, reporting results, and referral for counseling.
- The court held D.M.’s statements to Dr. Coffman were not admissible under art. 803(4) to the extent the examination functioned primarily as evidence collection for law enforcement rather than medical care.
- The court found the trial court erred by admitting the forensic-exam hearsay through Dr. Coffman.
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding the error was harmless in light of the other properly admitted evidence, including D.M.’s testimony and Dr. Barnes’s admissible testimony.

## Legal Principles

- La. Code Evid. art. 803(4) allows admission of statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment that describe medical history, symptoms, or the cause of a condition when the information is reasonably connected to medical care.
- In child sexual-abuse cases, a treating physician’s evaluation may include physical testing and mental-health referral; statements describing the abuse in that setting can fall within art. 803(4).
- When an examination is arranged mainly by law enforcement for forensic proof, with no treatment plan and no expected follow-up, statements made during that encounter generally fall outside art. 803(4).
- Even if hearsay is admitted in error, a conviction may be affirmed when the reviewing court concludes the mistake did not affect the verdict because the same points were shown by other admissible evidence.

## Conclusion

State v. Lawrence distinguishes between a treatment-focused medical visit and a police-initiated forensic examination when applying La. Code Evid. art. 803(4): the child’s statements to her pediatrician were admissible because they were tied to diagnosis, testing, and referral for counseling, while statements made to a forensic examiner arranged by police did not qualify under the medical-diagnosis/treatment exception; however, the appellate court affirmed because any error in admitting the forensic hearsay was harmless given the remaining evidence supporting the conviction.


State v. Lawrence, 752 So.2d. 934 (1999)