Summary
The Supreme Court of Utah granted the State's petition for extraordinary relief and vacated a district court ruling that closed-circuit testimony by a child witness would violate the Confrontation Clause. The court held that Maryland v. Craig, rather than Crawford v. Washington, governed in-court child testimony transmitted electronically, because Crawford addressed testimonial hearsay. The case was remanded for the district court to determine whether the requirements of Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.5 and Craig were satisfied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by concluding that Crawford v. Washington abrogated Maryland v. Craig and prohibited a child from testifying by closed-circuit television outside the defendant's physical presence.
- Whether the State was entitled to extraordinary relief under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B.
- Whether the case should be remanded for the district court to determine whether the requirements of Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.5 and Maryland v. Craig were satisfied.
Holdings
- Crawford v. Washington did not abrogate Maryland v. Craig. Crawford is limited to testimonial hearsay, while Craig governs the Confrontation Clause implications of in-court testimony by a child witness transmitted into the courtroom by closed-circuit television.
- The district court abused its discretion by applying Crawford to conclude that closed-circuit testimony by the child would violate the Confrontation Clause.
- The State satisfied the requirements for extraordinary relief, and the Utah Supreme Court exercised its discretion to grant the petition.
Key quotations
“where necessary to protect a child witness from trauma that would be caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant, at least where such trauma would impair the child's ability to communicate, the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the use of a procedure that, despite the absence of face-to-face confrontation, ensures the reliability of the evidence by subjecting it to rigorous adversarial testing and thereby preserves the essence of effective confrontation.” (¶ 11)
“We disagree with the conclusion of the district court that Crawford abrogated Craig.” (¶ 16)
Factual background
The State charged Greg Jonas with sexually abusing his six-year-old daughter. The State and the child's guardian ad litem sought to have the child testify from a separate room by closed-circuit television because testimony in the physical presence of the alleged abuser allegedly would cause serious emotional and mental strain. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion based on its conclusion that Crawford v. Washington precluded such testimony.
Procedural history
The State charged Greg Jonas with six counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Before trial, the State moved under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.5(2) to permit the six-year-old alleged victim to testify by closed-circuit television. The district court denied the motion, concluding under Crawford v. Washington that the procedure would violate the Confrontation Clause. The State sought extraordinary relief, which the Utah Supreme Court granted, vacating the ruling and remanding for consideration of whether the Rule 15.5 procedure satisfied Maryland v. Craig.
Remand instructions
Vacate the district court's ruling that the child's closed-circuit testimony would violate the Confrontation Clause, and determine whether Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.5 and its application in the case satisfy the requirements of Maryland v. Craig.