Background
In 2023, Amador Jesus Lopez assaulted his then-girlfriend over two days. After the final assault, she escaped and went to a nearby hospital. She told medical personnel that Lopez had bitten her face, smothered her with a pillow, pulled her by the hair, punched her, sexually assaulted her, and prevented her from leaving. DNA testing connected Lopez to samples collected from areas of the victim’s body associated with her reported injuries.
Lopez was charged with sexual assault, second degree assault, two counts of third degree assault, criminal mischief, and false imprisonment. The victim did not testify at trial. Over Lopez’s objection, the trial court admitted some of her statements through her treating doctor and a sexual assault nurse examiner under Colorado Rule of Evidence 803(4), while excluding other statements about Lopez’s conduct. The jury convicted Lopez of sexual assault, second degree assault, one third degree assault count, and criminal mischief, but acquitted him of the third degree assault count based on the alleged face bite.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the victim’s statements to the doctor and nurse were nontestimonial and therefore did not violate Lopez’s confrontation rights. Objectively, the circumstances showed that the statements were made to medical professionals, in medical facilities, outside the presence of law enforcement, for medical purposes rather than as a substitute for trial testimony.
The division concluded that the trial court appropriately distinguished between statements relevant to diagnosis and treatment and statements outside the medical-treatment hearsay exception. It also upheld the officer’s testimony about using information from the victim to locate a potential suspect and an address because it was admitted to explain investigative steps, not for the truth of the victim’s statements, and the jury received a limiting instruction. In any event, any error was harmless in light of the DNA evidence and the split verdict.
Key Takeaways
- Statements made to treating medical professionals may be nontestimonial even when a sexual assault nurse examination includes evidence collection.
- A police officer’s transport of a victim to medical care does not by itself make the victim’s medical statements testimonial.
- Out-of-court statements may be admitted to explain investigative steps when accompanied by an instruction barring their use for their truth.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that courts must separate the diagnostic and treatment portions of a SANE examination from potentially investigatory material. But medical-purpose statements can remain admissible without the victim’s testimony when the circumstances show their primary purpose was care rather than creating trial evidence.
The opinion also illustrates the appellate importance of corroborating forensic evidence and a split verdict when assessing whether an asserted evidentiary error was harmless.