## Facts

- Dee Ward and J.M. dated and lived together intermittently and had a child.
- J.M. arrived at her mother’s home after getting out of Ward’s truck, walking gingerly, crying, and saying she was hurt.
- J.M.’s mother observed welts and bruising on J.M.’s buttocks and legs and called 911 over J.M.’s objections.
- A paramedic arrived on an assault-trauma call, found J.M. in severe pain with extensive bruising, and assessed her condition for treatment and safety.
- After a police officer left the room, J.M. told the paramedic her boyfriend “Dee” caused her injuries; the paramedic transported her to the hospital to evaluate possible internal injuries.
- At the hospital, a forensic nurse took J.M.’s history and examined her under a violence-victim protocol that included determining how injuries occurred, identifying the assailant for safety planning, and arranging referrals and discharge planning.
- J.M. told the forensic nurse Ward hit her with a belt.
- J.M. did not appear for deposition or testify at trial; the State relied on the paramedic’s and nurse’s testimony recounting J.M.’s identifications.
- After a bench trial, Ward was convicted of Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery over confrontation and hearsay objections.

## Issues

1. Whether J.M.’s statements to the paramedic and forensic nurse identifying Ward were “testimonial” under the Sixth Amendment, making them inadmissible when J.M. did not testify.
2. Whether admitting J.M.’s statements violated the confrontation guarantee in Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Ward’s convictions.
- The court held J.M.’s statements to the paramedic and forensic nurse were non-testimonial, so the Sixth Amendment did not bar their admission.
- The court held no violation of the Indiana Constitution occurred because the paramedic and nurse testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination about the statements and circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Sixth Amendment “primary purpose” test, statements are testimonial when their primary purpose is to create a substitute for trial testimony, typically in a formal or interrogation-like setting.
- Statements made to medical personnel during evaluation and treatment are generally non-testimonial when aimed at diagnosis, treatment, safety assessment, and discharge or referral planning rather than building a criminal case.
- Questions seeking the assailant’s identity may be non-testimonial when clinically relevant to medical care and patient safety, including assessing ongoing danger and arranging protective services.
- Under Indiana’s confrontation clause, confrontation may be satisfied where the in-court witness who relates the out-of-court statement is present and subject to cross-examination, even if the original declarant is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of a victim’s identification of her assailant to a paramedic and forensic nurse because the statements were made for medical treatment and safety-related purposes rather than to create trial evidence, and Indiana’s confrontation right was satisfied by cross-examining the testifying medical witnesses who relayed the statements.


Ward v. State, 50 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. 2016)