Opinion ID: 2458734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issue Two: Confrontation Clause

Text: Levy next challenges the district court's admission into evidence of the recorded Safetalk interview at his preliminary hearing because the victim, who was the subject of the recording, was not called to testify. Levy argues admitting the interview into evidence under these circumstances violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also contends as a separate matter that it was error to admit the Safetalk interview into evidence at trial because the victim's testimony was incomplete and evasive, effectively denying him his right to confront his accuser. In addition, Levy asserts K.S.A. 22-2902(3), which permits a sexual abuse victim to be absent from a preliminary hearing if under 13 years of age, is unconstitutional under the Confrontation Clause. As with the previous issue, we must first determine whether Levy preserved his Confrontation Clause objections during the district court proceedings. In State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 231 P.3d 558 (2010), the defendant raised a Confrontation Clause issue for the first time on appeal in a driving under the influence case, arguing his rights were violated with the admission of the State's breathalyzer certification documents without giving him an opportunity to cross-examine the technician who actually prepared the documents. We held the issue was not preserved because the defendant did not object to the evidence's introduction at trial. 290 Kan. at 489, 231 P.3d 558. In so holding, we emphasized that a defendant must make a specific and timely objection to allow the trial court an opportunity to rule on the issue, even when the issue raised involves a fundamental right. See K.S.A. 60-404; Dukes, 290 Kan. at 489, 231 P.3d 558. We noted K.S.A. 60-404 dictates that a party may not present an evidentiary issue on appeal when no contemporaneous objection is made and the trial court did not have an opportunity to rule. 290 Kan. at 488, 231 P.3d 558. Considering first Levy's challenge to the district court's admission of the Safetalk interview at his preliminary hearing, we note the following exchange took place between the court, the prosecuting attorney (State), and the defense attorney (Defense): Q. Ms. [witness], showing you what's been marked as State's exhibit No. 1. Does that compact disk or DVD, does that contain a recording of the interview as you conducted it on 12-21? A. Yes, it does. Q. And is that recording a fair and accurate recording of the interview as you conducted it that day? A. Yes, it is. [State]: Your Honor, State would move for admission of State's Exhibit No. 1. THE COURT: All right, any objection? [Defense]: Judge, if I could inquire? THE COURT: Go ahead. [Defense]: Ms. [witness], did you actually handle the recording of the interview? A. I was not the one running the equipment. I was the one conducting the interview. Defense counsel then proceeded to inquire about the number of copies made of the recording, whether the witness reviewed the recording, whether the witness had her copy with her in court, whether it was the same version as the one the State had, and then concluded with: [Defense]: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Okay, I will admit it. [State]: Thank you, Your Honor. And, Your Honor, at this time I request that-to publish State's Exhibit 1. THE COURT: Okay. The video was then played for the court. When the State presented all its evidence, the court asked the parties if either wished to make any closing statements. Defense counsel replied simply, Judge, we would submit, and did not make a closing statement or raise any objection. Clearly, no challenge was made at the preliminary hearing to admission of the recording or the victim's absence from the proceedings. Similarly, at trial no objection was made when the Safetalk recording was offered into evidence and played for the jury. Levy's trial counsel noted only that he was assuming the recording offered was the same as the original and the one provided to the defense in advance of trial. Defense counsel then stated, Assuming that is correct, we have no objection. No mention was made of any inability to more thoroughly cross-examine the victim, who testified prior to the State offering the recording into evidence. Under these circumstances, we hold that Levy failed to comply with K.S.A. 60-404 to preserve for appeal an attack on the district court's admission at the preliminary hearing and trial of the Safetalk video recording, as well as an attack on the constitutionality of K.S.A. 22-2902(3). Dukes resolves these questions. See 290 Kan. at 487-90, 231 P.3d 558.