Opinion ID: 2442709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion In Limine Denied

Text: Defense counsel for Woodlin filed a motion to exclude Sarah's recorded interview with Klecan. The basis for the motion was that the then seven-year-old complaining witness' statements during her CAC interview in 2007 were involuntary because the questioning technique employed by the forensic interviewer, Klecan, was impermissibly suggestive. After hearing the State's response, the trial judge decided to view the DVD of the CAC interview before ruling on the motion. Two days later, when Woodlin's jury trial commenced, the trial judge announced that he had viewed the taped interview, and found that the CAC questioning was not the least bit suggestive or leading. It actually appeared to me to be very professionally done. The trial judge ruled that with one possible exception (a reference to whether the complaining witness' mother had touched the child's vagina) the taped CAC interview was admissible under section 3507. After denying the motion to exclude Sarah's prior statement, the trial judge asked defense counsel if he wanted the reference to the mother's alleged conduct excluded, since the mother was not on trial. Defense counsel declined, and stated: Your Honor, it would be the defense's position that if portions of the tape are going to come in, we'd ask that the entire portion come in.