Opinion ID: 1624931
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Closed Circuit Television Hearing

Text: Appellant's final claim involves the use of two way closed circuit television in the post conviction hearing. Specifically appellant argues the use of the closed circuit television violated his right to confrontation, equal protection, due process and effective representation. Similar arguments were heard in State ex rel. Turner v. Kinder, 740 S.W.2d 654 (Mo.banc 1987). Kinder was a consolidated case involving three inmates, two who had been arraigned and one who had undergone preliminary examination conducted via audiovisual hookup between the courtroom in the Cole County Courthouse and the conference room in the Penitentiary. Section 546.030, RSMo 1986, provided that the person pleading guilty be personally present. Section 544.250, RSMo 1986, prohibited an information from being filed charging a person with a felony unless the person received a preliminary examination before some associate circuit judge. Section 544.270, RSMo 1986, provided that the associate judge before whom any person was brought shall proceed to examine the complainant and witnesses produced in support of the prosecution, on oath, in the presence of the prisoner on the offense charged. This Court in Kinder refused to expand the plain meaning of the statutes in question to include the use of audiovisual technology to satisfy the in person and before an associate judge statutory requirements where the legislature had not evidenced any intention of permitting such an expansion. In response to Kinder , the General Assembly passed and presented to the Governor § 561.031, RSMo 1986, on March 1, 1988. It reads: 1. In the following proceedings, the provisions of section 544.250, 544.270, 544.275, RSMo, 564.03 RSMo, or of any other statute, or the provisions supreme court rules 21.10, 22.07, 24.01, 24.02, 27.01, 29.07, 31.02, 31.03, 36.01, 37.16, 37.47, 37.48, 37.50, 37.57, 37.58, 37.59, and 37.64 to the contrary notwithstanding, when the physical appearance in person in court is required of any person held in a place of custody or confinement in any city not within a county or in any county in which there is located a place of custody or confinement operated by the department of corrections and human resources, such personal appearance may be made by means of closed circuit television from the place of custody or confinement: provided that such television facilities provide two-way audiovisual communication between the court and the place of custody or confinement and that a full record of such proceedings by made by split screen imaging and recording of the proceedings in the courtroom and the place of confinement or custody in addition to such other record as may be required: (1) First appearance before an associate circuit judge on a criminal complaint; (2) Waiver of preliminary hearing; (3) Arraignment on an information or indictment where plea of not guilty is entered; (4) Arraignment on an information or indictment where a plea of guilty is entered upon waiver of any right such person might have to be physically present; (5) Any pretrial or posttrial criminal proceeding not allowing the cross-examination of witnesses; (6) Sentencing after conviction at trial upon waiver of any right such person might have to be physically present; (7) Sentencing after entry of a plea of guilty; and (8) Any civil proceeding other than trial by jury. 2. This section shall not prohibit other appearances via closed circuit television upon waiver of any right such persons held in custody or confinement might have to be physically present. (Emphasis added.) A Rule 27.26 post-conviction proceeding is a civil proceeding, and the Sixth Amendment applies only during the pendency of the criminal case, not to the motion under Rule 27.26. Williams v. State of Missouri, 640 F.2d 140, 144 (8th Cir.1981), cert, denied, 451 U.S. 990, 101 S.Ct. 2328, 68 L.Ed. 2d 849 (1981); State v. Edmondson, 438 S.W.2d 237, 242 (Mo.1969). But, given the quasi-criminal nature of the 27.26 hearing, we have examined the record and the tape and have fully satisfied ourselves that no constitutional violation is present. Appellant was present, along with counsel and inmate witnesses, at the prison. The Judge, attorney for the State, and other witnesses were present in the Cole County Courthouse. They were connected by an audiovisual two way hookup. Appellant was represented by counsel, could present witnesses in his behalf, and could cross-examine the State's witnesses. The hearing court complied with the terms of the statute by making and keeping a copy of the proceeding. In viewing the tape, we note the defendant was able to confer privately with his counsel, the cameras used provided a clear picture of the witnesses, examiners, and others present during the proceedings, and the cameras clearly and effectively conveyed both the text and the content of the testimony and the demeanor of the persons testifying. We find no diminution of our traditional standards of fair trial resulting from injecting the video cameras into the proceeding. In Kinder I suggested: Today split screen video appears to be an acceptable means of conducting the commercial business of the world, of conducting affairs between nations, of conducting political debate, of conducting the process of education, of communicating all forms of artistic pursuit, and for communicating to us the news of the world. Kinder, supra, at 658 (Welliver, J. dissenting). We see no reason why video should not now be an acceptable means of conducting court business when done pursuant to the guidelines of § 561.031, RSMo 1986. Having found no error in the findings or conclusions of the trial judge, the denial of appellant's Rule 27.26 post-conviction motion is affirmed. All concur.