Opinion ID: 2575812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: we choose to exercise our discretion to grant extraordinary relief

Text: ¶20 As noted above, the decision to grant extraordinary relief lies within our discretion. State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 24, __ P.3d __. When determining whether to grant an extraordinary writ, this court considers multiple factors, including the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petitioner, [and] the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error. Id. ¶21 While a party need not show each of the above factors, they are all present in this case. First, the error was egregious because the district court applied an inaccurate constitutional standard in a criminal case. Second, the legal issue is significant, as demonstrated by the ongoing debate in the Supreme Court. Finally, the consequences of denying relief would be severe. The guardian ad litem and the child's therapist have presented evidence that the child will not be able to testify in the defendant's presence, which would significantly affect the State's ability to prosecute the case. We think the child and the State should at least be able to present evidence that the child's closed circuit testimony complies with Craig and satisfies the Confrontation Clause. Based on these considerations, we grant the State's request for extraordinary relief and vacate the district court's ruling that the child's closed circuit testimony would violate the Confrontation Clause. ¶22 We note that while our grant of extraordinary relief vacates the district court's ruling, this opinion does not hold that the child will actually be able to testify outside of the courtroom. Although we have not addressed them in this opinion, Craig established certain requirements that must be satisfied before a child can testify outside of the defendant's presence via closed circuit television without violating the Confrontation Clause. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 850-57 (1990). Because the district court denied the State's rule 15.5 motion, it did not determine whether the Craig requirements had been met. We therefore remand to the district court to determine whether rule 15.5 and its application in this case satisfy the Craig requirements. ¶23 Associate Chief Justice Wilkins, Justice Durrant, Justice Parrish, and Justice Nehring concur in Chief Justice Durham's opinion.