Opinion ID: 2621235
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: RCW 9A.44.120 and RCW 9A.44.150

Text: This case involves the intersection of two statutes dealing with witness testimony and hearsay in child sexual abuse cases. First, RCW 9A.44.120 provides for the admission of child hearsay statements when the statements describe sexual or physical abuse of the child and (1) The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement[s] provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and (2) The child either: (a) Testifies at the proceedings; or (b) Is unavailable as a witness: PROVIDED, That when the child is unavailable as a witness, such statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the act. RCW 9A.44.120. In Ryan, we upheld the statute against a confrontation clause challenge. 103 Wash.2d at 179, 691 P.2d 197. We determined that the statutory requirements of reliability, unavailability, and corroboration satisfied the confrontation clause requirements outlined in Roberts. Id. at 170, 691 P.2d 197. We also noted that RCW 9A.44.120 is not within the category of firmly rooted hearsay exceptions. Id. Thus, unless the child testifies, a finding of unavailability is required by both the statute and the confrontation clause. A trial court's decision to admit hearsay statements under RCW 9A.44.120 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Hirschfield, 99 Wash.App. 1, 3, 987 P.2d 99 (1999). Second, RCW 9A.44.150 allows a child to testify via closed-circuit television in a criminal proceeding in certain circumstances. RCW 9A.44.150 states in part, (1) On motion of the prosecuting attorney in a criminal proceeding, the court may order that a child under the age of ten may testify in a room outside the presence of the defendant and the jury while one-way closed circuit television equipment simultaneously projects the child's testimony into another room so the defendant and the jury can watch and hear the child testify if: (a) The testimony will describe an act or attempted act of sexual contact performed with or on the child by another or describe an act or attempted act of physical abuse against the child by another; (b) The testimony is taken during the criminal proceeding; (c) The court finds by substantial evidence, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that requiring the child to testify in the presence of the defendant will cause the child to suffer serious emotional or mental distress that will prevent the child from reasonably communicating at the trial. . . . . (e) The court finds that the prosecutor has made all reasonable efforts to prepare the child for testifying, including informing the child or the child's parent or guardian about community counseling services, giving court tours, and explaining the trial process. If the prosecutor fails to demonstrate that preparations were implemented or the prosecutor in good faith attempted to implement them, the court shall deny the motion; (f) The court balances the strength of the state's case without the testimony of the child against the defendant's constitutional rights and the degree of infringement of the closed-circuit television procedure on those rights; (g) The court finds that no less restrictive method of obtaining the testimony exists that can adequately protect the child from the serious emotional or mental distress; . . . . (9) The state shall bear the costs of the closed-circuit television procedure. RCW 9A.44.150. The statute was upheld against a confrontation clause challenge in Foster. 135 Wash.2d at 473, 481, 957 P.2d 712 (Alexander, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).