Opinion ID: 2598353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Telephonic testimony

Text: Barry contends that the district court erred when it refused to allow Carlos Tony Bauman to testify at trial by telephone. [1] The decision whether to permit a witness to testify is within the sound discretion of the district court, and that determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. [2] The district court has the authority to control the interrogation of witnesses at trial under NRS 50.115, which provides in pertinent part: 1. The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence: (a) To make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth; (b) To avoid needless consumption of time; and (c) To protect witnesses from undue harassment or embarrassment. Before trial, Barry requested that Bauman testify by telephone because Bauman lived in Switzerland and was beyond the district court's jurisdiction and beyond subpoena power. Barry argued that telephonic testimony was not unusual as many depositions are taken by telephone, and the law only requires that testimony be given in open court, not in person. Barry stated that the parties could fax Bauman the documents that he would testify about. Lindner, who had no opportunity to depose Bauman before trial, argued that she would be prejudiced if the district court allowed Bauman to testify by telephone because she would not be able to confront him, as she would not be able to cross-examine him with documents and observe his demeanor. The district court agreed, finding that the Confrontation Clause issue weighed against permitting Bauman to testify by telephone. The district court noted that there was no statutory authority for telephonic testimony at trial, and expressed concern that it would lack contempt power over Bauman if he testified by telephone. Therefore, the district court ruled that Bauman would not be permitted to testify by telephone. NRCP 43(a) provides: In all trials the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, unless otherwise provided by these rules or by statute. No statute or rule provides for telephonic testimony at trial. Other jurisdictions have addressed the issue of telephonic testimony. Some jurisdictions have issued guidelines and procedures governing telephonic testimony, [3] while others have only permitted telephonic testimony under special circumstances, i.e., exigency or consent and knowledge of the witness' identity and credentials. [4] However, in the absence of such special circumstances, generally courts have not permitted telephonic testimony. [5] We agree with the jurisdictions that use the special circumstances standard. Thus, absent a showing of special circumstances, telephonic testimony is not permissible at trial. Using this standard, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing Bauman to testify by telephone. Barry failed to establish any exigent circumstances, and Bauman was not an expert witness who had submitted a report.