FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

SUSAN K. CARPENTER    JEFFREY A. MODISETT
Public Defender of Indiana    Attorney General of Indiana

GREGORY L. LEWIS     SARAH E. SCHERRER
Deputy Public Defender    Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana    Indianapolis, Indiana

DENNIS COOPER,                 )
                                    )
    Appellant-Defendant,            )
                                    )
        vs.                         )    No. 71A03-9807-CR-329
                                    )
STATE OF INDIANA,                   )
                                    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.             )

                                

that S.A. told her "that was all [Cooper] does is that and hugs and kisses her. Kisses her on the mouth." Id. Torres relayed this information to Dr. Jennifer Lackman, who performed the medical examination of S.A.
    Dr. Lackman testified that the doctors at the hospital rely on the nurses' notes regarding the history and information obtained from the child and the parent and "do not repeat that with the patient." Id. at 261. Dr. Lackman further testified that she would not expect there to be any physical findings from a child being licked in the genital area. Her diagnosis was "possible sexual assault." Id. at 266.
    Additional facts will be set forth where pertinent.

was mailed to the trial court clerk by certified mail, return receipt requested, on July 15, 1998.
    The Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure "govern the procedure and practice in all courts of the state of Indiana in all suits of a civil nature." Ind. Trial Rule 1. The trial rules also apply to all criminal proceedings as long as they are not in conflict with any specific rule adopted by our supreme court for the conduct of criminal proceedings. Crim. R. 21. T.R. 5(E) provides in pertinent part: "The filing of pleadings, motions, and other papers with the court as required by these rules shall be made by one of the following methods: * * * (3) Mailing to the clerk by registered or certified mail return receipt requested . . . ." When papers are filed in the manner set forth in T.R. 5(E)(3), filing "shall be complete upon mailing." T.R. 5(E). Accordingly, the filing of Cooper's praecipe was complete when it was deposited in the mail. See T.R. 5(E). See also Seastrom, Inc. v. Amick Constr. Co., Inc., 159 Ind. App. 266, 306 N.E.2d 125 (1974) (all filings may be accomplished by mailing to the clerk of the court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and filing is accomplished upon deposit in the mail).
    Cooper did not fail to timely file his praecipe.

where a patient consults with a physician, the declarant's desire to seek and receive treatment may be inferred from the circumstances. Where that inference is not obvious, as in this case involving a young child brought to treatment by someone else, there must be evidence that the declarant understood the professional's role in order to trigger the motivation to provide truthful information. Here the requisite indicia of reliability are missing. There is no evidence that the victim sought the therapist's help or that he believed he was receiving any treatment. The child testified that [the therapist] was his "counselor" and that he talked to her about what McClain did to him. Thus, the record is devoid of any evidence showing that the victim understood that he was speaking to a trained professional for the purposes of obtaining diagnosis of, or providing treatment for, emotional or psychological injuries. Because the declarant's motive to promote treatment or diagnosis is crucial to reliability, the therapist's testimony was not shown to be within the medical diagnosis or treatment hearsay exception.

Id. (citations omitted).
    Applying the two-step analysis set forth in McClain to this case, we conclude that Torres's testimony was properly admitted into evidence. Certainly, the second step of the analysis, whether the content of the statement is such that an expert in the field would reasonably rely on it in rendering diagnosis or treatment, has been met.
    Turning next to the first step of the analysis, i.e., whether the declarant, here S.A., was motivated to provide truthful information in order to promote diagnosis or treatment, we look to the testimony of Nurse Torres. At trial, Torres described the procedure generally followed when a child comes into the hospital alleging that she is a victim of a sexual assault. In the following testimony, Torres described the procedure she generally followed after notifying various agencies of an alleged assault, the specific procedure she followed with S.A. in this case, and what S.A. told her about the molestation:
    A.    If we're able to do the exam, we'll try and bring them back into a room and generally we introduce ourselves to the child, to the mother,

anybody else that's there, and have the child get to know us, try to make it a little bit social, little bit comfortable for them so they don't feel like they're -- anybody is scared to come to the emergency room so that way they don't feel so scared. We give them coloring books, try and keep them occupied.

    Q.    How do you find out what happened to the child?

    A.    After you do the initial trying to get to know the child, see what their, how they act, if they're open, and if they're a little quiet, and very scared, generally I'll just take my time, let them color for a while, just let them know who I am and who the doctor is, and once that's established, I'll generally talk to the parents first, to see what it was that brought them in in the first place. What it was that they were told, and then I'll start addressing the child, ask them if they know why they're in the emergency room, and let them know that they're not there because of something they did wrong. They are always afraid that they did something wrong.

    Q.    When you're dealing with the child, you tell them who you are and what your job is?

    A.    Um-hum.

    Q.    What typically do you say?

    A.    I usually tell them my name is Kim and I'll be their nurse and I'll be with them the whole time, and I tell them who the doctor is. Generally if it's a female doctor that we have on, since, most of the cases are female, I try to get the female doctor so I'll know already which doctor's going to go, so I'll tell them who the doctor is and I give them a rough view of the things we're going to do, we're going to be talking to them, the police will be talking to them, sex offense services will come in and color with them and keep them busy and then see if they have any questions and answer their questions and just take it from there. Let them know what they are going to expect, what the doctor is going to do, that it's okay for the doctor and the nurse to take a look at them because mom or dad's present and it's a good touch and not a bad touch with mom or dad, but it's okay.

[Whereupon a side bar conference ensued about whether Torres's testimony of what S.A. told her was inadmissible hearsay.]
    Q.    Yes?

    A.    She was coloring when she was discussing things. I think she told me that Poppie takes her into his and Diane's bedroom and has her lay down on the bed, and then he kisses her down there and she points to her genital area and says where she goes pee. And I asked her to show me what Poppie does because she also had told me that she didn't have her clothes off, she had her underwear on. And she put her underwear to the side and didn't take them off and says that's how he does it. She said Poppie asked her to touch him where he goes pee and she said she said no, and she said that was all he does is that and hugs and kisses her. Kisses her on the mouth.

Record at 248-56 (emphasis supplied).

    The above quoted portion of the record to which we have added emphasis provides a proper basis for the trial court's admission into evidence of the hearsay statements made by Torres which were attributed to S.A. As Torres's testimony makes clear, S.A. knew that she was in the emergency room for an examination by a physician because of the molestation by Cooper. S.A. sufficiently understood the professional role of both the nurse and the doctor who examined her, thus triggering the motivation to provide truthful information. The trial

court did not err therefore in admitting, pursuant to the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule, Nurse Torres's testimony that S.A. told her that Cooper had kissed her vaginal area.
    Judgment affirmed.
BAILEY, J., and STATON, J., concur.

Converted from WP6.1 by the Access Indiana Information Network