Opinion ID: 2442709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Objection Denied

Text: Woodlin's jury trial proceeded with the direct examination of the then eight-year-old complaining witness, Sarah, and Klecan, the CAC forensic interviewer. When Klecan's direct examination concluded, the State moved to admit the DVD of Klecan's interview of Sarah into evidence under section 3507 and requested permission to play the DVD for the jury. Woodlin's defense counsel objected to the admission of the CAC interview and stated: I don't believe that they have met their criteria under 3507. I think there's still an issue as to voluntariness. I think there's still an issue where the court has to be satisfied that the statement was completely voluntary. Following the State's response, the trial judge again found the complaining witness' prior out-of-court statement to be voluntary and ruled that the recorded CAC interview was admissible: Now, so far as the admission of the statement, the requirements of 3507 are that the out-of-court statement be voluntary, that the witness testify about both the events perceived and the out-of-court statements and whether or not they are true and the witness be subject to cross-examination on the content of the statement and its truthfulness. As for the voluntariness, I don't think there's any question there at all. It's clearly voluntary. I saw the statement myself. So in addition to that, and listening to the witness' testimony, it's clearly voluntary. As to the second part, that the witness testify about both the events perceived in the out-of-court statement and whether or not they are true, the apparent difficulty of the child in answering the questions here is very similar to her initial reaction in the statement itself. I'm satisfied that she testified to the point where she at least touched on the events, and she touched on the out-of-court statement, said it was true. I think she implicitly, at least, indicated here in court that the event was true. And I think that under the circumstances, I think her difficulty in testifying in detail in this court about the events is sincere, and she will be subject to cross-examination on the content of the statement and its truthfulness. And also, the statement is a recorded statement that the jury will actually see. It's not somebody else summarizing or trying to characterize what the child said. They will see the child's actual words. So my finding is that the [DVD]or let me put it this way: The statement is admissible. I don't think the [DVD] comes in separately.