martin the trial court's order ought not to be totally immunized from appellate review and that people should be allowed to peel the trial court's order for the following two reasons first supreme court rule six zero four a one applies delinquency proceedings under the correct to the state ever ever explained anywhere in the record wire refused it did your honor on page forty one of volume two of the record the prosecutor essentially said that the reason that he did not i want to question came going the substance of her out of court statement was because he wanted to avoid having to he wanted to avoid having to have her wired to testify about the details of the allegations in open court especially against her brother that's  character on her a given the fact that all the parties were there in court that she would have to testify about the allegations in front of her family in front of the court reporter in front of all the interested parties and counsel the prosecutor wanted to avoid further traumatizing this girl by having to have her testify about these traumatic allegations both on direct examination and on cross examination and the reasonableness of the prosecutor's decision as reflected by the documents that we have in the record over didn't the prosecutor also allegations on cross examination but there is something to be said about not wanting to have her testify about these allegations also on direct examination essentially requiring her to have to testify about it twice and the reasonableness of this decision is reflected by what we have in the record prior to trial respond his counsel had filed a motion to quash the subpoena to have been served on came out and in that motion the parents council had stated that came method been in counseling since april of two thousand and six and that they did not believe that it was in her best interest to have to testify in court regarding the details of these allegations because of all the parties that would be present because her brother would be present and i it would require having to go through all of this which would further traumatize or in addition we also have came a statement which is in the record in the form of recorded interview and when viewing the statement came up is in an environment where she is where it's supposed to come for all for her to talk about these types of allegations she's talking to an interviewer was trained to discuss these types of things and she still has difficulty discussing the allegations and talking about what exactly it was that her brother had done to her so it was reasonable for the prosecutor based on all this information which he presumably was aware of to not want to have to have her testify to these allegations both on direct examination and cross examination just as initials no we're arguing here that the people's reason for not complying with the  really goes more to the correctness of the trial court's ruling not to whether the order was appealable under rule six zero four eight one those issues whether or not the prosecutor correctly chose not to ask these questions on direct examination really goes less correct trying to respond is arguing that and this was an issue that was in the trial court that by requiring them to have to ask for these questions about the allegations that was requiring them to have to do the state's job for them that they would have to prove the allegations in the delinquen proceeding and the trial court in this case was concerned about the state resting its entire case on one hearsay statement but there's no reason that the prosecutor couldn't rely on this one hearsay statement to prove its case by now asking her questions on direct examination and not having her testify about these allegations that really goes more to her credibility as a witness and that could even be construed as perhaps a weakness in the state's case that the trial court could consider when deciding whether or not to believe her allegations  in addition respondent relies on this court's decision people versus true it in arguing that the trial court's order to not have the substantive effect of suppressing evidence but was really rather rather it affected more the manner in which the people c present the evidence this court's decision in true it however is distinguishable from this case and also the reasoning that this court applied in true it does not apply in this case in true it the people wanted to present a lab report without presenting the testimony of the chemist who prepared the live court and this court held that that was not a suppression order within the meaning of rule six zero four one the order actually had the opposite effect of the suppression order because by requiring the state resent the testimony  chemist the jury would actually have a much more thorough picture of the reasonable facts in the case than if the state were simply to be able to rely on a piece of paper that reasoning does not apply in this case because here the people actually presented the it who did not testify they presented her testimony she testified on direct examination answered all the questions posed to her on direct examination then tendered her to respond counsel where they she answered again all the questions that were posed to her on cross examination and then answered all the questions that were posed to her by her paper excuse me her parents counsel so unlike the chems intruder who did not there was no opportunity to cross examine him it all came up was subject to a full and even though they did not question her regarding the substance of the statements of full cross examination and it was respondents council's decision not to question her regarding the substance of those statements that was their decision and it was not the fault of the people that they did not want to question or were arguing that they i mean again this was more of the merits of the trial court's decision that they're not required to ask her about these questions because katie came up was subject to cross examination in this case so we believe there's actually no confrontation clause problem and this situation is actually more similar to the situation that this court was presented with in people versus this that in people versus true it in fish with in these situations  each case is judged on an individual case by case basis the the relevant question in each of these cases is whether or not the trial court's order had the substantive effect of suppressing evidence and essentially that the prosecutor's reason for not complying with the order does not really affect the effect of the trial court's order what this court looks at is whether the order operated to prevent evidence from being admitted to the fact finder and at the moment that the trial court's order was entered we look at what the effect of that order was so in fyffes what happened was the trial court held that unless witnesses took the affirmative act of waiving privilege and then it if those witnesses do not take the affirmative act of waiting privilege those witnesses would not be allowed to testify that was a conditional order in this court held that that was a suppression order within the meaning of rule six of forty one because further even though further acts were required in order to have this evidence emitted what we were looking at was the substantive effect of the order and at the moment that the order was entered the evidence was not going to be admitted here at the moment the trial court entered its order the evidence wasn't going to come in the trial court was not going to consider that evidence so it had the effect of suppressing evidence and so in each of these cases there is going to be determination regarding whether or not the order had the effect of suppressing evidence but we would be looking to the language of the rule and this court can look to whether or not the order did in fact have the effect of suppressing evidence but it wouldn't really look at to the appeal all of these types of procedures could be implemented which would allow these types of appeals to be expedited which would then minimize any unnecessarily prolonging delay which could potentially undermine a juvenile's rehabilitation  interest in addition even if this court didn't really want to adopt a new rule supreme court rule three eleven already exists which allows for parties to follow a motion for an expedited appeal and should the appellate courts find that there is a good reason type of that factor is not a distinguishing factor for our purposes basically because the juvenile court act has been amended so that juvenile delinquency proceedings look now virtually the same as criminal proceedings that distinction isn't as relevant as it was back before the amendment for the same reasons that an interlocutory appeal should be allowed in a criminal proceeding and should be allowed in the delinquency proceeding given that virtually all of the constitutional requirements all of the rules of evidence all the procedural safeguards that are available in a criminal case are available in a delinquency proceeding especially given that double jeopardy applies in both a criminal proceeding and a delinquency proceeding and people versus young this court reason that one of the main purpose or one of the main reasons that the people are allowed to appeal and interlocutory order that suppresses evidence and substantially impairs the people's ability to prosecute its case was because double jeopardy applied in a criminal proceeding the people are not allowed to appeal from a judgment of acquittal in a delinquency proceeding and so on like the juvenile who can appeal from a suppression order at the end of a delinquency proceeding the people aren't entitled to that same right of appeal and this court found that it would be manifest unfair for the state's case to be weakened due to an erroneous suppression order that was entered during a trial so we could have is a situation where erroneous suppression orders and errors favoring juvenile offenders could always go uncorrected but wall errors in the state would always be rectified and to the extent that those types of errors that are there are allowed to proliferate at the trial court level that could result in the distorted development of the law but even more importantly that would harm the truth seeking function of a trial and this court has essentially said that the main purpose of the trial is that the determination of the guilt or innocence of an individual is to be discovered and if the people are not allowed to appeal an erroneous suppression order that was entered during a delinquency proceeding it's possible that a juvenile who's in need of rehabilitation will not get that rehabilitation and they could be reintroduced into society without getting that necessary rehabilitation so that is one of the this court is going to be concerned with balancing the interests the people which is essentially to get to the truth of the charges and also the interest of the juvenile which is avoiding unnecessary delay and admittedly while the juvenile does have an interest in avoiding delay that interest can be minimized given what we discussed before that these appeals can be expedited and edition this court has already recognized that even though the juvenile has that interest that interest is outweighed by the people's interest in having these types of interlocutory orders subjected to appellate review that was this court's main concern and people versus martin this court found that certain types of orders that were entered in martin those should not be totally immunized from review and that was one of the main reasons that this court found that those orders should be subject to appellate review consider the fact that the juveniles interest would be harmed that you know like you tory appeals would undermine that would unnecessarily prolong a trial but found that given that balancing the people's interest in having these orders subjected to review outweigh that interest and this is also consistent with the recent change to the juvenile court act which is which made it criminal proceeding which made delinquency proceedings essentially the same in practice and purpose to criminal proceedings even though rehabilitation remains one of the main goals of the delinquency proceedings this court is consistently acknowledge that the primary purpose of delinquency proceedings now is to punish the juvenile and to protect society from the effects of juvenile crime so even though you know and this is also and i'm an assistant offender at the office of the city a public defender the trial court in this case ruled that the that the complainants hearsay statement was admissible pursuant to section one fifteen ten what the state is appealing from is the trial court's requirement that it conduct a direct examination of the complainant about the substance of the claims against the minor in conjunction with the introduction of that videotape the state is correct the issue before this court is narrow it is the jurisdiction of the appellate court to entertain an appeal from this particular order the appellate court's dismissal in this case can be affirmed on grounds for relief it would be that the current version of supreme court rules do not authorize the application of rule six zero four one and only once it proceedings this court in determining whether an order is  order or not has always focused on the substantive a fact of the order and the stakes are actually observes that in many cases including feds this court has focused on the moment that the trial court ruled that evidence a s use like martin for close the state from proceeding in criminal court in da zeus the question was the state that the state had the miner had been automatically transferred to adult court and were she'd only been convicted of an offense that was not an automatic transfer case under those circumstances in order to to sentence that minor as an adult the state was required to file a motion to have that minor nonetheless sentenced as an adult did that in that case and the trial court denied the motion and the case would have been proceeded as if the minor had been sentenced as a as a minor rather than appealing that order the state one judge shopping one to another  plain language rule six zero four in the plain language of sixty six sixty simply wasn't before this court in that case and again in addition it precluded the state from proceeding against the minor and criminal court just as it did and just evidence the claim to order is that it suppresses evidence but really what the order does is it expands the amount of evidence that's put before the trial or a fact under those circumstances it's  true and you can say the same thing about the order in true and untrue at the state wanted to introduce your say lab report from a lab employee rather than calling the employee herself to testify in the case and what the trial court said is if you want to introduce that here say document you also have to call the lab employee and have the lab them for a testify that ruling expanded the amount of information that was before the court increased the truth seeking function of the trial and then addition as in this case the state had it wholly within its power to ted to get the evidence that it sought to be introduced all it needed to do in true it was to call the miami employee in it really complicates the application of the application of this rule but in this case the state essentially laid the ball in the lap of the defense to make its own case is for it to ask its own the state's own complaining witnesses questions that are going to be incriminating that's not the it's not the defense's job to make the state's case what it's also although the state is the other issue is the issue o in this case though the defense did not have the opportunity to cross the complainant about her testimony about the offenses self just a way that you actions but if we allow the state to waive objection scope related objections in any case where it is elation of the record that is certainly part of it another is that the reason that the state gave in that case for not wanting to come not wanting to conduct a direct examination was contrary to establish case law the state claimed that the purpose of rule one fifteen ten was to avoid having child complainants tests to pass testify about the circumstances of the defense a trial that's this court and don't recognize that's not the purpose of row one for one fifteen ten it was the purpose for an older version of a videotape statute which children were allowed to testify by videotape statements but the purpose of one fifteen ten is to bolster the testimony of a child because these particular types of offenses are viewed as being particularly difficult to prosecute and to prove it to the not being able to appeal and you never know and in a situation like this maybe the state made a promise to the parent not to go into maybe the state would generally feels as they stressed here that the trauma of going into it twice would be too much for this child and they make the decision they go forward if indeed they haven't met their burden in some respect the defendant should be happy about not upset about the fact that the burden wasn't met during the direct testimony of the child so they go back to the point where if they're in that situation where they feel they can't proce add to the rule based argument is the notion that these type of appeals shouldn't be allowed in juvenile cases and the state's interest and this courts to the courts interest in the consistent development of a body of case law is undermined if we for e these types of appeals it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't substantially undermine that interest because this particular issue the issue of whether or the state can put a witness on the stand and not examine the witness about the substance of the complaints could just as easily be raised in an adult appeal if the state tries this particular tactic in an adult appeal and files a notice of appeal it's a different issue and this case this chilling with the state's ability to appeal in juvenile cases and so many of the concerns about issues of meeting with a view are not really going to be an issue because so few juvenile appeals are taken in the first place so many of the issues the issue in this case the legitimacy of a search and seizure all of those issues will be can still be raised in state appeals in adult cases so the body of case law governing these issues will continue to develop with without being particularly damaged by not being allowed to appeal a handful of juvenile cases in a particular  year i want to go back just a little bit towards true and talking about true in the states focus on that whole notion that it becomes a suppression order at that very moment in time when the trial judge rules the out that the evidence can't come in the exact same thing was true in true it in truth the the trial judge said the hearsay statement is not coming in unless you call a witness so at that moment in time in true it the order on its face looks and not just to whether the trial court said you may not introduce that evidence the focus is also on whether the exclusion of that evidence resulted in less left evidence coming before the court whether it appeals it simply would have omitted that phrase final judgment there is a presumption that when a statute or rule is drafted the drafters intended what they said from their support for this only from and it lists a list of a list of circumstances under which the state appeal removing that phrase in criminal cases would do no violence to the language of that statute all of the six hundred related rules are related to criminal proceedings so it was not necessary to put in the phrase in criminal cases the state may appeal from because the rules themselves are dedicated to criminal rules and all of the rulings that are listed in that rule this case and i don't think you're going to get an argument really based on all of the expert opinion that expediting juvenile appeals is is is an excellent idea but in this case this case is governed by the state of the rules in existence at this time and the language of the rules in effect at the time that the state appealed this particular case did not authorize appeals state or like attorney appeals the notion that juvenile appeals that this court should not allow juvenile interlocutory appeals is supported by sound public policy and the types of balancing test that this court has employed in other cases when evaluating the scope of the state's right to interlocutory appeals essentially this to this court's balance the interests of the accused the interest of the judicial system and the interest of society in juvenile cases that minors in particular are affected by delays in ways that adults aren't simply aren't anxiety stress fear those sorts of issues arise in any case where the proceedings are delayed and the state takes an  but in the case of juveniles it actually can damage their cognitive development it can undermine their trust trust issues and security issues those are all issues that are necessary for rehabilitation if the minor sees the system a if the minor walks into a court room and the proceedings drag on and on and on the minors very likely to see the proceedings unfair and be much more resistant to intervention by the adults by the court who are who are trying to those issues the issues of juvenile victims in a case are dealt with in a separate body in a separate body of case law this argument about whether juveniles should be allowed to appeal or not this argument is not unique to just those cases that involve where the victim may be sympathetic in addition delays damage family relationships with juveniles and the passage of time actually because of the way juvenile brains develop break the connection between the action and the consequence that's imposed all of these things about juveniles undermine their ability to be rehabilitated if we don't deal with these with these cases in an expedited matter the judicial system and society both do have an interest in the consistent development of a body of case law but as i discussed a little earlier the body of case law developed regarding suppression orders and search and seizure those will all continue to develop in adult cases from state appeals regardless of whether juvenile cases have ticked up appeals or not and finally the stakes simply are not as high in juvenile cases in terms of correcting erroneous orders obviously this society and the judiciary has an interest in  lecting erroneous or erroneous orders that the legislature has determined that despite the fact that they amended the statute and made these children made the proceedings more adult like in many respects that x continues to focus on rehabilitation in a way that it does not in adult cases the legislature limited severely the length of time that a juvenile can be incarcerated for example for an offense juveniles can only be held up until age twenty one  legislature also limited the circumstances under which a twelve court can order and can make an order of imprisonment a trial court can only one of the imprisoned in a minor if it's in the best interest of the minor and the public  if it's necessary to protect protect public safety in contrast in adult cases adult defendants can be sentenced to prison for violent alrighty of reasons unrelated to rehabilitation in terms of just punishment defendant had an opportunity to cross examine based on the state's direct examination based on the of the foundation of the hearsay statement the state still didn't put on any testimony from the complaint and about what had occurred there is a difference and giving testimony that is normally in a court room with all of the formality that that brings all of the gravity that that brings to a witness on the stand to actually have to face the person that the complainant is accusing that lends a degree of reliability to testimony and statements that statements made that are unsworn outside of a courtroom setting simply don't have to the my time is expired and i would respectfully request that you have from the appellate court's decision thank you thank your honour's just a few quick points some rebuttal are concerned with whether or not not allowing these types of orders to be allowed in a delinquency proceeding would mean that the people would never be allowed to appeal these orders they would effectively be insulated from appellate review and that is one of the main reasons that this court allowed those types of orders to be subjected to appellate review in martin because it was concerned that the trial court could enter these orders and the people would never be able to review the propriety of those orders now given the discussion that we've had today about the merits of the case which again have to do with whether or not the people that has to deal with the issues in the people's underlying appeal given a discussion about the confrontation clause this is an important issue that deserves appellate review whether or not the respondent here had the op to cross examine all those are important issues that because the rules of evidence in the confrontation of the confrontation clause applies in delinquency proceedings that's one of the reasons that these types of orders should be subjected to review the trial court here suppress an important piece of evidence in the state's case it was a piece of evidence that essentially without that evidence the state could not continue its prosecution of the respondent and without being able to review that piece of evidence the state's case is essentially over and so even though we were talking about how these issues are not likely to arise in a delinquency proceeding there's still the possibility that they could arise in individual cases and the people have an interest in each into society having been rehabilitated having been punished and so that society ends up being protected so there is something to be said about having these orders correctly entered in here again given our discussion there is a possibility that the trial court incorrectly and to the order here that not allowing the state or not allowing this evidence to be admitted was not a violation of the confrontation clause just to get into the marriage just a little bit this court in sutton and then the appellate court precedent that's currently  occurring now people versus bryant held that there is actually not there probably isn't a confrontation clause violation in this case because the confrontation clause only guarantees the opportunity for effective cross examination not the not cross examination in whatever way and to whatever extent defense counsel may wish to cross examine and here came up was on the stand she answered all the questions on direct examination she answered all the questions on cross examination she was available to be subjected to further cross examination but respondants counsel chose not to do that and any questions that go to whether or not the people were acquired to prove their burden in this case and defense counsel was required to do the state's jotham all this goes to the weight of her credibility as a witness not to again whether or not the trial court's order in this case had the substantive effect of suppressing evidence and i think we by looking at the reason that the people chose not to comply with the trial court's order in this case that necessarily gets into a m determination of the issue and that's one of the reasons that this court essentially just looks at the substantive effect of the order at the time that the order was entered and this is perfectly consistent with what federal case law does and that's one of the reasons that federal case law just looks at the effect of the order at the moment that the order was entered and this court has consistently looked a federal case law when analyzing supreme court rule six zero four i won because eighteen u s c section thirty seven thirty one is the analogous federal the order and the seven circuits to see united states versus parks is directly on point seven circuit held that order in that case was an on ambiguous suppression order now whether or not the you know the people chose not to comply with the order in that case and whether or not that was a good reason that really goes to the merits of the appeal it's possible that the people would be able to appeal that order but the people would eventually lose the appeal because the reason or the propriety of the order the reason that the people chose not to comply with the order that might not have been a good so the opportunity to have this could have could have occurred turning quickly to that he says issue responding argues that to he says is not binding because the language of the rule was not in dispute at the time that this court one in orders that were entered in proceedings under the juvenile court act so even though that that proposition was not necessarily in dispute this court had to reach the issue of whether the orders that were discussed in martin