Opinion ID: 2608568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of witness Rodriguez to be preserved on video tape and presented to the jury.

Text: Petitioner does not challenge the general proposition that deposition may be taken by means of video tape for use in criminal cases. This mode of procedure is authorized by CrR 4.6(a), (c) and CR 30(b)(4). State v. Hewett, 86 Wn.2d 487, 491, 545 P.2d 1201 (1976). He protests the use of a video tape in this case, however, by asserting the State failed to establish that witness Rodriguez would be unavailable for trial as required by CrR 4.6(d). Prior to authorizing use of a video tape deposition the trial was scheduled for October 5, 1977 (later continued to November 21, 1977). It was also established that witness Rodriguez had received a second lieutenant commission and had been ordered by the Army to report for active duty at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on September 30, 1977. The trial court concluded there was a sound and legitimate reason for the witness being out of the jurisdiction at the time of trial and made the following findings of fact to which no error was assigned. 1. Daniel C. Rodriguez is a necessary and material witness in this cause, being the victim. 2. Daniel C. Rodriguez will be unavailable at time of trial due to duty with the United States Army, alteration of which would disrupt his military career. 3. The interest of justice will best be served by preserving the testimony of Daniel C. Rodriguez on tape. [3] Petitioner argues that the foregoing was an insufficient showing that the witness could not be in attendance at trial. There was, he contends, no showing of an attempt to have the orders changed. While it is true there was no apparent attempt to have the Army change its orders for the convenience of the court, the record is clear that any delay in reporting for active duty would have caused witness Rodriguez a substantial setback in his Army career, including a 3- to 5-month delay in his specialized training and would have been a detriment to his elevation in rank. The question of unavailability to testify at trial is one of fact to be determined by the trial judge. We hold the trial court correctly resolved the issue of availability. A witness (victim) under Army orders to be in another state at the time of trial clearly falls within the ambit of CrR 4.6(d). Cf. State v. Hewett, supra (complaining witness, a ship's officer scheduled to sail for Japan the day after the crime and who was at sea the day of trial, found unavailable); State v. Firven, 22 Wn. App. 703, 591 P.2d 869 (1979) (complaining witnesses, Navy seamen scheduled to ship out prior to trial, found unavailable); see also State v. Roebuck, 75 Wn.2d 67, 448 P.2d 934 (1968) (complaining witness who became incompetent after his testimony was taken at a preliminary hearing found unavailable). The Court of Appeals is affirmed. UTTER, C.J., and ROSELLINI, BRACHTENBACH, HOROWITZ, DOLLIVER, HICKS, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.