2 weeks Ago By Michael Karlik [email protected]
Colorado's second-highest court on Thursday overturned a man's domestic violence convictions because a witness's improper testimony had provided the only link between the defendant and the assault in question. Generally, courts do not allow hearsay testimony , which means out-of-court statements introduced to prove the truth. Such statements are not subject to cross-examination under oath, making them unreliable.
There is an exception, however, if a witness recounts a person's statement made for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis. In 2022, El Paso County jurors convicted Joshua Starr on multiple counts of assault and harassment, related to domestic violence. He received a sentence of 24 months on probation.
In the underlying sequence of events, a passerby encountered the alleged victim crying and visibly injured on the sidewalk. Two Manitou Springs police officers responded. They talked with the victim and went to question Starr at the address given by the victim.
They encountered bloodstains at the apartment and noted Starr was also physically injured. Meanwhile, the victim met with a physician's assistant and forensic nurse examiner at the hospital. The forensic nurse, known as a " SANE ," heard the victim describe being assaulted by her boyfriend.
In the process, the victim mentioned Starr by name. The SANE helped the victim establish a safety plan to ensure she did not return to the apartment. For reasons that were unclear on appeal, the victim did not testify at trial.
Nor did the primary officer who spoke with the victim and wrote a report. Her partner did testify, although he had a more limited role in the investigation. Moreover, because a trial judge deemed the officers had failed to give Starr a Mianda warning before interrogating him in custody, Starr's statements to the officers were excluded from trial.
The defense objected to using the victim's statements to medical professionals at trial, but District Court Judge William Moller allowed the jury to hear them, relying on the medical treatment exception to the rule against hearsay. As a result, the SANE testified that the victim identified Starr as the perpetrator. Starr appealed, and a three-judge appellate panel appeared concerned about the SANE's hearsay testimony that Starr assaulted the victim, which was the only evidence identifying Starr as the assailant.
"There was no 911 call of what the victim said to police to get them to the scene," said Judge Sueanna P. Johnson during oral arguments, recounting the trial evidence. "Starr's statements were suppressed for whatever he might have said when police made contact with him confirming, 'Yes, I am this Starr and I live here and I'm her boyfriend.
' None of that came in, you would agree?" "I don't know that it matters," replied Senior Assistant Attorney General Jessica E. Ross. "The identity was relevant to the medical diagnosis and treatment.
" "If she were to go to the hospital, be physically examined," pressed Judge Pax L. Moultrie, "and presumably there's some referral to outside resources — some sort of victim support resources — why is the identity necessary to facilitate that referral?" Decided: April 3, 2025 Jurisdiction: El Paso County Ruling: 3-0 Judges: Sueanna P. Johnson (author) Lino S.
Lipinsky de Orlov Pax L. Moultrie Ross said a SANE in that scenario would not "cut of that kind of interaction by saying, 'No, no, no, I don't want to hear that' or 'This isn't relevant to my diagnosis or treatment.'" That is true, acknowledged Johnson, but then it is a trial judge's responsibility to decide whether such a statement can legally be used at trial.
"What if objectively, a court says, 'No, that is not relevant for purposes of a medical diagnosis?'" she wondered. Ultimately, the panel agreed with the defense that the SANE's hearsay testimony about Starr being the perpetrator was not necessary to treat the victim, and it should have been barred from trial. Moreover, because the prosecution had not brought in the only other witnesses who could identify Starr as the perpetrator, the SANE's improper testimony served a key purpose.
Johnson, in the April 3 opinion , noted Moller's original ruling "misstated the evidence" when he said the victim told police Starr had assaulted her. The victim's statement to the SANE "was the only evidence at trial that identified her attacker by name," Johnson wrote. The panel ordered a new trial for Starr.
The case is People v. Starr..
