Sex Offense Case: Ohio Court of Appeals


A defendant who was alleged of rape appealed his judgment. He cited two errors to the trial court. First of all, that they erred in originally denying his motion to suppress testimony from the victim procured at a Child Advocacy Center. Second, the defendant claimed the court erred in not granting his original motion to suppress statements that he made to police when they interviewed him at his home. In conviction of sex offenses, no error in admitting statements of child victim to forensic interviewer where the statements were useful in diagnosis and treatment of the conditions resulting from abuse and were an exception to hearsay, Evid.R. 803(4).