## Facts

- Melvin Joe, a Native American living on the Navajo reservation in New Mexico, separated from his wife, Julia Joe, after she filed for divorce; their children lived with Julia.
- On February 23, 1992, Joe drank heavily throughout the day, later drove to Julia’s residence, forced entry, and confronted her while brandishing an unloaded .22 rifle.
- Joe fought with and assaulted Julia; she and neighbor Matilda Washburn attempted to leave to Washburn’s home out of fear Joe would return.
- Joe drove a vehicle directly at Julia, struck her, and then drove toward a nearby truck bed where Julia and Washburn sought shelter.
- From about fifty feet away, Joe accelerated and rammed the truck bed, knocking it over onto Julia and Washburn and fatally injuring both.
- Eight days before her death, Julia told her physician, Dr. Brett Smoker, that Joe had raped her and that she feared him; the physician recommended counseling, law-enforcement protection, and shelter housing.
- Joe admitted killing both women but argued intoxication and rage prevented forming the specific intent required for first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s statements to her treating physician identifying Joe as her rapist and expressing fear of him were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) as statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
2. Whether the statements (and related expert testimony) should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403, or were otherwise improper under Fed. R. Evid. 703.
3. Whether the district court erred by imposing concurrent life sentences on both first-degree murder and second-degree murder counts arising from the same killings.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the admission of Dr. Smoker’s testimony recounting Julia’s statements under Rule 803(4).
- The court rejected the Rule 403 challenge, finding the evidence probative and not unfairly prejudicial to a degree requiring exclusion.
- The court affirmed Joe’s convictions, including the first-degree murder conviction.
- The court reversed in part and remanded for resentencing on the second-degree murder count, leaving the remainder of the judgment intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4), statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment may include descriptions of the cause of an injury or condition when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis, treatment, or medical management.
- In sexual and domestic abuse contexts, a patient’s identification of the abuser and expressions of fear can be reasonably pertinent to treatment because appropriate care may include counseling and safety planning (including referral to protective services and shelter).
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 703, an expert (including a treating physician) may base opinions on information reasonably relied upon in the field, even if the underlying information would otherwise be hearsay.
- Rule 403 exclusion requires a showing that unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; substantial probative value on intent and relationship evidence supports admission.
- When multiple homicide counts cover overlapping conduct, sentencing must comply with statutory and guideline constraints; appellate courts may remand for resentencing on one count while affirming the convictions.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that a domestic-violence victim’s statements to her physician identifying her abuser and expressing fear were admissible as medically pertinent under Rule 803(4), affirmed Joe’s murder convictions, and remanded for resentencing on the second-degree murder count.


United States v. Joe, 8 F.3d 1488 (10th Cir. 1993)