dissenting:
I would affirm the conviction of Guillermo Ramirez on two counts of sexual assault of a minor under fourteen years of age and one count of lewdness with a minor under fourteen years of age.
I do not agree that the statements of Deputy Musgrave or the district court, which indicated that Dr. Finkel examined the victim, violated the hearsay rule or the confrontation clause. Introducing Dr. Finkel’s statements regarding his findings would have violated the hearsay rule and given the defendant the right to confront Dr. Finkel; however, neither Deputy Musgrave nor the district court did so. The fact that the victim underwent a medical examination in New Jersey was introduced solely as one of the reasons why Deputy Musgrave continued his own investigation and filed charges. Since the State did not introduce Dr. Finkel’s statements into evidence, he thus was not a witness against the defendant and did not trigger the defendant’s right of confrontation. Dr. Finkel did not become a witness solely because other witnesses acknowledged his involvement in the case.
Furthermore, introducing the fact that an examination had been conducted does not constitute the plain error necessary to trigger this court’s review, in light of the fact that the defendant did not object to its introduction at trial. “Failure to object below generally precludes review by this court. . . .” Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394, 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992). This court will, however, address plain error and constitutional error sua sponte. *564Id. Plain error is defined as error “so unmistakable that it reveals itself from a casual inspection of the record.” Patterson v. State, 111 Nev. 1525, 1530, 907 P.2d 984, 987 (1995). Not only did the defendant fail to object to the statements regarding Dr. Finkel’s examination of the victim, but also, defense counsel first mentioned the examination. In fact, defense counsel told the jury the results of the examination, even though they were never introduced into evidence. In defense counsel’s opening statement, he said: “That little girl went to see a doctor. There is no evidence of any penetration, she is still a virgin. There is [sic] no tears. There is no physical evidence that this woman, this little girl was ever harmed in any way.” In light of this defense statement to the jury, the introduction of evidence by the prosecution of the simple fact that an examination occurred certainly was not “plain error.”
Even if introduction of evidence that an examination had occurred had violated the hearsay rule, that error would have been harmless in this case. Ample evidence proved that Ramirez committed the crimes charged. The victim’s testimony was clear, consistent, and corroborated by: (1) the changes in her behavior that coincided with the time of the assault, (2) the spontaneous nature of her initial revelations, (3) the level of her sexual knowledge, inappropriate for her age, but consistent with her allegations, and (4) her ability to identify the substance defendant used during the assaults.
There is no basis for reversing these convictions.