## Facts

- Sherman T. Peneaux was charged with four counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 12 and two assault counts arising from alleged sexual abuse and cigarette burns inflicted on his young daughter, T.P., and physical abuse of another young child, N.P.
- After South Dakota social services removed T.P. (age three) and her siblings from the home, T.P. reported to multiple adults that Peneaux sexually abused her and burned her with cigarettes.
- T.P. repeated similar accounts to several non-law-enforcement and professional listeners, including a tribal investigator, a forensic interviewer, a case worker, foster parents, and a pediatrician (Dr. Lori Strong).
- During medical examinations, Dr. Strong questioned T.P. and N.P. in a clinical setting to assess possible abuse-related injuries; the children disclosed sexual abuse (T.P.) and cigarette burns (both children).
- At trial, T.P. testified but gave inconsistent answers, at times denying abuse while acknowledging she previously told others she had been abused; she also identified body areas on diagrams when questioned.
- N.P. did not testify; her statements were introduced through Dr. Strong and other adult witnesses.
- A jury convicted Peneaux on all counts, and the district court imposed concurrent sentences of 180 months (sexual-abuse counts) and 60 months (assault counts).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for aggravated sexual abuse and assault despite the child victim’s inconsistent trial testimony.
2. Whether the district court properly admitted T.P.’s and N.P.’s statements to Dr. Strong under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) as statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
3. Whether admission of the children’s out-of-court statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington, particularly as to N.P., who did not testify.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The evidence, including properly admitted out-of-court statements and corroborating testimony, permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the children’s statements to Dr. Strong under Rule 803(4).
- Admission of T.P.’s prior statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because she testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.
- Admission of N.P.’s statements to Dr. Strong did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were non-testimonial.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, appellate courts view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and defer to the jury’s credibility determinations, including when a child witness gives inconsistent testimony.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4), statements are admissible when made for medical diagnosis or treatment and when the declarant reasonably understands their medical purpose; a physician’s explanation and the clinical context can support that finding for a young child.
- In child-abuse examinations, statements describing abuse and, in appropriate circumstances, identifying the abuser may be considered reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
- Under Crawford, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied for a declarant’s prior statements when the declarant testifies at trial and the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine, even if the testimony is inconsistent or unhelpful.
- Statements made to a physician during a medical examination for diagnosis and treatment are generally non-testimonial when their primary purpose is medical care rather than creating evidence for prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Peneaux’s convictions, concluding that the jury could rely on the children’s consistent out-of-court disclosures and corroborating testimony despite T.P.’s inconsistent trial testimony, that the physician-examination statements were admissible under Rule 803(4), and that their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause because T.P. was cross-examinable and N.P.’s medical statements were non-testimonial.


United States v. Peneaux, 432 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005)