Background
A Jefferson County grand jury charged Cory Moss with first-degree burglary, first-degree strangulation, fourth-degree assault, and second-degree criminal mischief. The Commonwealth alleged that Moss entered the apartment of his former girlfriend, Maurissa Robinson, strangled and injured her, and later damaged a police vehicle after officers arrested him.
EMS evaluated Robinson at the scene, and she later received treatment at an emergency room. She reportedly told medical personnel that she had been assaulted and strangled. After the Commonwealth disclosed that Robinson was uncooperative and would not testify at trial, Moss moved to exclude her out-of-court statements. The circuit court ultimately excluded statements to police and medical personnel concerning choking or strangulation, reasoning that they were testimonial because no ongoing emergency existed.
The Commonwealth brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the exclusion of Robinson’s statements to EMS and ER personnel. It did not challenge the exclusion of her statements to police or to the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that Robinson’s statements to EMS and ER personnel about being choked or strangled were nontestimonial. Applying the primary-purpose analysis, the court concluded that the statements were made during an emergent medical evaluation to communicate the nature of her injuries and obtain treatment, not to create evidence for a future prosecution. The absence of lights and sirens and EMS’s “code 1” response did not make the statements testimonial.
The court distinguished statements describing the mechanism of injury from statements identifying Moss as the assailant. It explained that Robinson needed to disclose that she had been choked or strangled for medical evaluation and treatment, but identification of the assailant was not relevant to that treatment and would properly be excluded.
Because the circuit court had not decided whether the nontestimonial statements qualified under a hearsay exception, the Court of Appeals declined to resolve that issue initially. It affirmed the October 9 order excluding Robinson’s statement to the SANE nurse because the Commonwealth did not challenge that ruling, reversed the October 13 supplemental order as to statements made to other EMS and ER personnel, and remanded for the circuit court to determine whether those statements are admissible under a hearsay exception.
Key Takeaways
- A patient’s statements to medical personnel describing strangulation may be nontestimonial when their primary purpose is medical evaluation and treatment.
- The absence of an active assault, emergency lights, or sirens does not by itself establish that medical-treatment statements are testimonial.
- A statement may survive a Confrontation Clause challenge yet remain inadmissible unless it satisfies an applicable hearsay exception.
- Statements identifying an alleged assailant may be excluded when that identification is not relevant to medical treatment.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Kentucky courts must assess the purpose and context of statements to medical providers rather than treating the absence of an ongoing physical attack as dispositive under the Confrontation Clause. Statements necessary to explain a potentially serious injury can be nontestimonial even when they describe conduct that has already ended.
The ruling does not guarantee admission of Robinson’s statements at trial. On remand, the Commonwealth must still establish that the statements to EMS and ER personnel, excluding those made to the SANE nurse, satisfy a recognized hearsay exception.