State v. Arnold

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.