Utah Supreme Court hears argument on whether statements to SANE nurses are testimonial

The Utah Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over whether statements a sexual‑assault survivor made to a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, or SANE, are testimonial and thus subject to the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The issue arose in the appeal of Arthur Najera after the district court admitted the victim’s statements taken during a SANE exam.

Sarah Karlquist, counsel for Arthur Najera, argued that SANE exams in Utah are conducted under circumstances that would lead an objective person to understand the primary purpose is to collect evidence for future prosecution. “Statements are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that their primary purpose is to establish or prove past events for potential future prosecution,” Karlquist told the court, and she urged the justices to treat SANEs’ summary statements as testimonial on that basis.

Daniel Boyer, arguing for the State, urged a different approach, saying the court’s analysis must focus on the primary purpose of the statements as received in the emergency‑room context. “BR statements to the SANE were non testimonial and made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment,” Boyer said, asking the court to view the interview through the lens of an injured patient seeking care.

Why the case matters

The…