127 P.3d 916 (2006)
Defendant, the child's father, and another friend were drinking. Defendant ran when the father found defendant with the child.
- The court reversed and held that under Crawford, the child's statements to the doctor were non-testimonial because the questioning of the child was to determine his injuries, rather than as an agent of the police.
- Further the statements were for purposes of medical diagnosis under Colo. R. Evid. 803(4). The child's statements to his father and the other friend satisfied the Dement test because the child was unavailable to testify and the statements fell within Rule 803(2).
- The court also found that even without the videotaped statements to the police, the jury had an ample basis for finding defendant guilty, and thus admission did not constitute plain error.
- Also, the legislative history of the offense of sexual assault on a child demonstrated that word "knowingly" was inserted into the definition of the offense and the word "knowing" into the definition of "sexual contact," was to provide a mental-state requirement of general intent.
- Therefore, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the defense of intoxication was not available to defendant.
The court reversed the decision of the appellate court.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.