E.M., age 13, complained to a social worker that her father had sexually abused her. The social worker called Dr. Ornelas, a pediatrician who examined E.M.. She concluded that E.M. had indeed been sexually abused. Dr. Montoya, a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist also examined E.M.. Dr. Montoya stated that E.M. told her that she had been sexually abused by her father. Evaluations by both doctors, identifying the father as the perpetrator, were presented at trial. Although the evaluations contained hearsay, they were admitted pursuant to the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule, which admits reasonably pertinent statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis. Accordingly, a children's court found that E.M. had been abused by her father.

E.M.'s parents appealed, contending that the lower court was in error in admitting the testimony of both the pediatrician and the psychologist. They argued that the statements given to the pediatrician were for purposes of investigation, not diagnosis. They further argued that the state had failed to lay a proper foundation for the testimony of the psychologist and that therefore it should have been deemed inadmissible evidence.

Holding: Reversed. The pediatrician's statements were correctly admitted because the identity of the perpetrator of the abuse was reasonably pertinent to diagnosis. However, since the psychologist had testified that she did not need to know the perpetrator of the sexual abuse to counsel E.M., the court found that the lower court had abused its discretion in admitting her testimony.