State v. Arnold

126 Ohio St. 3d 290, 933 N.E.2d 775 (2010)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State v. Arnold

Ohio Supreme Court
126 Ohio St. 3d 290, 933 N.E.2d 775 (2010)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Michael Arnold (plaintiff) was discovered in his four-year-old daughter’s, M.A.’s, locked bedroom by his wife, Wendy Otto, in the middle of the night. Arnold’s boxers were halfway off, and M.A.’s underwear was around her ankles. Otto suspected sexual abuse and immediately called the police. M.A. was taken to the hospital to collect a rape kit. The next morning, Otto took M.A. to the Center for Child and Family Advocacy (CCFA), at which social workers, medical professionals, and law enforcement officers cooperated to address child-abuse cases. The purpose of CCFA was to streamline the interview, investigation, and medical-treatment processes to reduce stress for child victims. M.A. was first interviewed by Kerri Marshall, a social worker. Because of the dual purposes of the CCFA, Marshall conducted the interview as both an agent of the police and an agent of the medical team. Marshall conducted an extensive interview, questioning M.A. about exactly what happened the night before, where Arnold touched her, and how Arnold touched her. Using descriptive, age-appropriate terms, M.A. stated that Arnold came into her room, locked the door, and sexually assaulted her. Marshall’s interview with M.A. was recorded. Based on Marshall’s interview, Gail Horner, a nurse practitioner, conducted a physical exam during which Horner found evidence of physical trauma to M.A.’s genitals that was diagnostic of recent sexual abuse. The State of Ohio (defendant) charged Arnold with rape. At trial, because M.A. was unable to testify, the court played the recording of M.A.’s interview with Marshall. Arnold was convicted. Arnold appealed, arguing that admitting the recording of M.A.’s interview with Marshall violated his Confrontation Clause right to confront his accuser. The appellate court affirmed, holding that M.A.’s recorded, out-of-court statements were admissible because they were made for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment. Arnold appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership