Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) (conviction for major crime, as defined by Rule 609, to impeach a witness other than a criminal defendant, admissible "subject to Rule 403").Evidence of untruthfulness may be excluded as unduly prejudicial under the standards laid down in rules such as the federal "undue prejudice" rule codified by Federal Rule of Evidence 403. However, if specific rules governing impeachment call for the use of different prejudice standards, the standards set forth in those specific rules govern rather than the standards set forth in a general undue prejudice rule such as Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

Cf. United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054, 1062-1063 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that the testimony of physician's assistant [about the statements of the sexually abused child] was erroneously admitted as excited utterance because....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.

United States v. Keene, 341 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's ruling which sustained the prosecution's suggestion that "jurors could analyze handwriting evidence on numbered labels from drug....A matter or thing (such as a signature) may be authenticated by having the trier of fact compare that matter or thing with another matter or thing -- a "specimen" or "exemplar" -- that has been authenticated.