Document: 482 U.S. 730 107 S.Ct. 2658 96 L.Ed.2d 631 KENTUCKY, Petitionerv.Sergio STINCER. No. 86-572. Argued April 22, 1987. Decided June 19, Syllabus After a jury was sworn at respondent's Kentucky trial for committing sodomy with two minor girls, but before the presentation of evidence, court conducted an in-chambers hearing to determine girls' competency testify. Respondent, not his counsel, excluded from this hearing. Under law, when child's testify is raised, judge required resolve whether child capable observing, recollecting, and narrating facts, has moral sense obligation tell truth. Thus, during hearing, attorneys limited themselves questions designed girls were remembering basic facts distinguishing between truth falsehood. The ruled that both competent Before each girl began her substantive testimony in open court, prosecutor repeated some background asked while on cross-examination, other such questions, particularly those regarding ability distinguish lies. complete, counsel did request reconsider its rulings. Respondent convicted, Supreme Court reversed, holding exclusion violated right confront witnesses against him. Held: 1. Respondent's rights under Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment by Pp. 736-744. (a) Clause's functional purpose promote reliability criminal trials ensuring defendant opportunity cross-examination. 736-739. (b) Rather than attempting "stage trial" (as opposed pretrial proceeding) subject requirements, more useful inquiry excluding interferes No interference occurred here, because cross-examined respondent present available assist any could have been direct Moreover, nature militates finding violation, hearings usually are matters unrelated issues. In addition, judge's responsibility continues throughout so determination may be reconsidered motion after examination child. 739-744. 2. Due Process Fourteenth defendant's due process critical stages proceeding if presence would contribute fairness procedure implicated here light particular whereby questioning issues neither about she give trial. There no indication reliable determination. 745-747. 712 S.W.2d 939 (Ky.1986), reversed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN STEVENS, joined, post, p. 748. Penny R. Warren, Frankfort, Ky., petitioner. Mark A. Posnansky, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN Court. 1 question presented case held violates or Amendment. 2 * Sergio Stincer indicted Circuit Christian County, charged first-degree T.G., 8-year-old girl, N.G., 7-year-old B.H., 5-year-old boy, violation Ky.Rev.Stat. § 510.070 (1985). sworn, young testify.1 Over objection, respondent, (a public defender), Tr. 15. 3 children examined separately judge, prosecutor, telling lie. Id., 15-26. 8-year-old, age, date birth, name school, names teachers, Sunday school. She also knew what it meant truth, keep promise God 16-18.2 similar questions. 20-25.3 substance they object these 20, 25. 4 girl's had 31-33 (direct T.G.) (questions where witness attended school like); id., 66 N.G.) age school). T.G. then testified, examination, placed sock over eyes, given chocolate pudding eat, "put d-i-c-k" mouth. 34. testified incident. 69.4 5 On remember past events difference Some See 38-39, 44-47, 60-63 (cross-examination T.G.); 71-72, 74-75, 78-83 N.G.). concluded, ruling testify.5 convicted engaging deviate sexual intercourse fixed sentence 20 years' imprisonment.6 6 appeal Kentucky, argued, among things, denied him divided vote, agreed that, Federal Constitution 11 Bill Rights (the "to meet face face"), absolute "was crucial phase trial." 939, 940 (1986). explained "might taken place determined testify." 941. Two justices, however, dissented, concluding fully cross-examining 942-944. 7 We granted certiorari, 479 1005, 642, 93 699 (1986), constitutional hearing.7 II 8 Amendment's provides: "In all prosecutions, accused shall enjoy . confronted him." This secured defendants state as well federal proceedings. Pointer v. Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 13 923 (1965). emphasized "a primary interest [the Clause] cross-examination." Douglas Alabama, 415, 418, 1074, 1076, 934 protected Clause, integrity fact-finding process. Cross-examination "the principal means believability tested." Davis Alaska, 415 308, 316, 94 1105, 1110, 39 347 (1974). Indeed, recognized cross-examination " 'greatest legal engine ever invented discovery truth.' California Green, 399 149, 158, 90 1930, 1935, 26 489 (1970), quoting J. Wigmore, Evidence 1367, 29 (3d ed. 1940). usefulness early explicating Clause: 9 "The provision prevent depositions ex parte affidavits being used prisoner lieu personal opportunity, only testing recollection sifting conscience witness, compelling stand order look him, demeanor upon manner he gives worthy belief." Mattox United States, 156 237, 242-243, 15 337, 839, L.Ed. 409 (1895).8 10 Kirby 174 47, 53, 19 574, 576, 43 890 (1899). thus essentially "functional" truth-finding functions cases arisen reflect application right. These fall into broad, albeit exclusive, categories: "cases involving admission out-of-court statements restrictions imposed law scope Delaware Fensterer, 474 15, 18, 106 292, 294, 88 (1985) (per curiam ). 12 first category cases, "hearsay evidence [is] admitted defendan[t]," Tennessee Street, 471 409, 413, 105 2078, 2081, 425 (1985), cross-examine hearsay declarant trial, statement unavailable does bear adequate indications trustworthiness. Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 65-66, 100 2531, 2538-39, 65 597 (1980). For example, we sufficiently consistent defense engaged full preliminary made. 70-73, S.Ct., 2541-42. supra, concluded admitting declarant's inconsistent "as long testifying effective cross-examination" itself. U.S., 1935. second involves restricted ruling. confidentiality provisions juvenile record, although might affected witness' credibility. expose jurors appropriately draw inferences relating witness." 318, 1111. Similarly, Van Arsdall, 475 673, 1431, 89 674 precluded State's dismissal pending drunkenness charge concluded: "By cutting off event reasonably found furnished motive favoring prosecution testimony," court's Clause. 679, 1435.9 14 Although claims arising always neatly one categories, Lee Illinois, 476 530, 2056, 514 Of course, guarantees "an whatever way, extent, wish." 294 (emphasis original). limitation concept confrontation promoting B Commonwealth argues violate stage trier fact." Brief Petitioner 22. Cf. Gannett Co. DePasquale, 443 368, 394, 99 2898, 2912, 61 608 (1979) (Burger, concurring). Distinguishing "trial" "pretrial proceeding" helpful case, instance, chambers, opposing who witnesses.10 guilt innocence retains relationship determines key will Further, made ongoing make based actual 16 Instead characterize proceeding, consider case. testify, appeared court. At point, complete examined. 38-58 71-84 necessary. rule nor Any participated, presence. 159, 1935 ("[T]he inability time prior cannot easily shown significance assured trial"). 17 type easy repeat three issues: observing recollecting jury, Moore Commonwealth, 384 498, 500 (Ky.1964) ("When infant properly raised duty carefully examine ascertain (or he) intelligent observe, recollect narrate speak truth"); Capps 560 559, (Ky.1977); Hendricks 550 551, 554 see Thomas 300 Ky. 480, 481-482, 189 686, 686-687 (1945); Comment, An Overview Competency Child Testimony, No.Ky.L.Rev. 181, 184 (1986).11 Children often their names, go how old are, know is, lie happens tells Requirement Victim Sexual Abuse: Must Abandon It?, 40 U. Miami L.Rev. 245, 263, n. 78 (1985); Defendants' Witness Hearings: Establishing Constitutional Procedures Abuse Cases, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 1377, 1381-1383, nn. 9-11 (1985).12 18 certain decide answers Whitehead Stith, 268 703, 709, 834, 837 (1937) (question finds lacks qualification, "it commits palpable abuse discretion" should permit testify); Payne 623 867, 878 (Ky.1981); S.W. 2d, 560. Wigmore 507, 714 (citing cases). States determining competency, trial.13 A earlier decision testifies see, e.g., re R.R., 79 N.J. 97, 106, 398 A.2d 76, 80 (at close attorney moved 4-year-old boy declared incompetent basis boy),14 witness. See, Reply ("If, there arises challenging determination, reconsider," referring effect, 126-127). appellate courts reviewing trial.15 N.G. several directed witnesses' backgrounds others—particularly falsehood—were children's testimony, thought appropriate, position move rulings ground elicited lacked requisites serving witnesses.16 tool establishing undermining credibility testimony. Because issue conclude girls.17 III 21 hearing.18 assumed even situations actually confronting own person whenever relation, substantial, fulness defend charge." Snyder Massachusetts, 291 105-106, 54 330, 332, (1934). privilege guaranteed "when useless, benefit shadow," 106-107, clearly requires allowed extent fair just thwarted absence," 108, 333. outcome procedure. 22 emphasize, again, All instead, solely falsehood, truth.19 discuss upcoming substantial better himself kind us case.20 23 He children, knowledge background, assisted either asking resulted competency. record therefore, say hearing.21 As said Gagnon, 470 522, 527, 1482, 1484, 84 486 ), "could done [anything] [he] [hearing] gained anything attending."22 24 judgment 25 It ordered. whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 27 today defines guaranteeing nothing point protects much more. secures minimum lawyer witnesses. claim Amendment, though testimonial context addressed below decided here. Were I again dissent. attend every 28 text plainly envisions shall, rule, can marvel avoids manifest import Without explanation, narrows analysis address exclusively accurately identified simply intended secure: ante, 736 (1965)). use analytical blinders undoubtedly convenient. Since ultimately receive presence, narrowly drawn standard enables relative ease violated, 740 744, admittedly was, "crucial" physically excluded. Ante, 744—745, 17. adverse witnesses, never standing alone suffice true detail pertains statements, (1980); (1970); But contexts defendants' doubted, making Court's categorical analysis, 737-738, largely beside point. Not until gone far substitute subsequent proceeding. Rather, care identify exclusive That "included in" broad 404, 1068, Though "[c]onfrontation physically," 315, must implication encompass physical previously recognized, literal 'confront' forms core values furthered Clause," 157, 1934-1935, compel "face face" fact. 242, 339, (1895); 63, 5, 6, 2537, 6. 30 Physical enhances factfinding assess observe accuracy committed truthfulness. 741. necessarily independent factual findings measured addressing name, relation defendant, concerning alleged offense assessment concern possesses needed inaccuracies answers. Having ensures called attention immediately—before takes imprimatur front commission offense. functionally inefficient fundamentally unfair attribute involuntary absence, deems relevant turns entirely evaluation out without violating guarantee 31 "[A] fact primarily established proved except tried, entitled cross-examine, whose impeach mode authorized rules governing conduct cases. presumption attends prove beyond reasonable doubt." 55, 577, 32 stake recently observed serves "symbolic goals" well: 33 "[T]he contributes establishment system justice perception reality prevails. To foster system, provides safeguards greatest possible degree society's having accuser engage contest advances goals convictions charges unseen unknown—and hence unchallengable—individuals." 540, 2062. 34 appearance woefully lacking sua sponte, protestations recent Cuban immigrant fluency English language limited, preserved appeal.1 Neither prosecuting articulated reason From perspective, specter court-appointed conferring privately understandably upsetting. unrequested unjustified constitutes intolerable subversion symbolic Clause.2 35 Had invoked self-representation pro se, little doubt 36 grants personally defense. accused, 'informed cause accusation,' 'confronted him,' accorded 'compulsory obtaining favor.' Faretta California, 422 806, 819, 95 2525, 2533, 45 562 (1975). 37 represents "entitled latitude conducting enjoyed vigorously espousing client's cause." Little, 404 553, 555, 92 659, 660, 708 (1972). Given well-founded pronouncements, today's create difficult dilemma: choice continuing exercise assistance thereby appearing se attendance occasion forced fundamental untenable, Simmons 390 377, 967, 976, 1247 (1968) (defendant's support suppress Fourth not, Fifth objection guilt). Today's neglects serious constitutionally defensible. 38 flow attaches nature. acknowledges, independently grounded "has charge," 745; Faretta, bore hardly doubted. correctly "although 740. Reviewing transcript concludes achieving determinations. propriety exclude evaluated transpired absence. do transforms harmless. below. More importantly, citing single per decision, unfairly shifts burden proving harm deprivation way responsible error least able demonstrate attend. respectfully Immediately dismissed believe B.H. prosecutor's motion. 13-14. response stated "[d]on't stories." replied "get whopping" told 24. confusion "d-i-c-k" spelled word 55-58. appears recanted somewhat 77-78. relate sufficient convict crimes charged. withstand verdict acquittal. 941 wished E.T., allegedly witnessed question. E.T. courtroom, and, apparently, present. 87. record. apparently objected. 109-110. previous declined incompetent. 126-127. E.T.'s validity absence Appellant 84-SC-496-I (Ky.Sup.Ct.), pp. 14-17. surprisingly, majority refers girls. "any act gratification persons married sex organs mouth anus another." 510.010(1) First-degree Class felony conviction carries imprisonment maximum life imprisonment. §§ 510.070(2) 532.060. initial matter, asks vacate our grant certiorari because, view, rests 'separate, adequate, grounds.' 50, Michigan Long, 463 1032, 1041, 103 3469, 3476, 77 1201 (1983). decline so. fairly interwoven adequacy independence clear opinion," assume believed compelled conclusion. 1040-1041, 3476. consistently referred supporting gave distinct from, broader than, One noted commentator pointed main "is secure opponent omitted), 1395, 150 (Chadbourn rev. 1974) (Wigmore), additional advantage enabled obtain elusive incommunicable deportment testifying" omitted). 153, 1932. sometimes "trial right." Barber Page, 719, 725, 1318, 1322, 255 (1968); 157 (1970) ("right Pennsylvania Ritchie, 480 39, 989, (1987), plurality interpreted mean improper types ask 52, 999. Ritchie (1974), records confidential, rather 54, 1000. view author plurality. believes "[t]here perhaps most them, simple satisfy purposes cross-examination," 62, 1004 (BLACKMUN, concurring), precludes access information hinder equally 63-65, 995-996. His differences demonstrated below, interfered exclusion. author's take middle supra. Similar requirements set forth Wheeler 159 523, 93, 244 (1895): "[T]here precise depends capacity intelligence child, appreciation former." 524, 93. generally 505-507. explicitly allow requiring others provide persons, including deemed unless otherwise statute. B. Battman & Bulkley, National Legal Resource Center Advocacy Protection, Protecting Victim/Witnesses: Sample Laws Materials 43-44 (1986) (listing statutes) (Protecting Victim/Witnesses); Evidentiary Procedural Trends State Legislation Other Emerging Issues Dick.L.Rev. 645, 645 commentators urged undergoing qualification. Victim/Witnesses, (proposing sample statute according same rebuttable witnesses); 509, 719 ("it sensible put seem worth"). number mandate specified requirements. include expression, understanding receiving impressions Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 12-2202 (1982); Ga.Code Ann. 24-9-5 Idaho Code 9-202 (Supp.1987); Ind.Code 34-1-14-5 (1986); Mich.Comp.Laws 600.2163 Minn.Stat. 595.02, subd. 1(f) N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law 60.20 (McKinney 1981); Rev.Code 2317.01 (1981); statutes). reforms presuming allowing juries opinion. concerned retain qualification Litzkuhn Clark, Ariz. 355, 360, 339 P.2d 389, 392 (1959) ("[I]t permitted change mind therefor, remove instruct disregard testimony"); Weber, 312, 317, 608, 611 (1963) ("The [regarding competency] denied"). amended disqualification explicitly: outside reserve challenges conclusion Cal.Evid.Code 701(b) (West Supp.1987). (Ky.1981) (review reveals appropriate); (Ky.1977) ("Not demonstrates intellectual recognize 113, ("[I]n need limit responses voir dire examination; entire record—including oath—in arrive decision"). fact, reconsideration subjected note once "crucial S.W.2d, 940. Nevertheless, proper violated. appropriate concerns. Even context, whether, "but for" avoided conviction, contributed charges. infra, Part III. artful presenting founded raise 14-17, therefore us. During 91-101. above, Counsel acknowledged "were exceed normal scope," "begi[n] [a defendant's] defend." Oral Arg. 9; Howard, 57 App.2d 1, 4-5, 385 N.E.2d 312-313 (1978) bears in-camera identifying assailant). Although, focus impossible related asked. 1384 memory "suggests inquire assault"); Moll State, 351 N.W.2d 639, 643 (Minn.App.1984) discretion elicit anticipated offense, recognizing suggestibility children"). Where defend, balance role assisting risk identifiable injury specific American Psychological Association Amicus Curiae 15-26 (noting intuitive victims vulnerable proceedings correct children). Contrary dissent's charge, 754, harmless-error applies situation failed establish fails establish, deprivation. consult 28-32. acknowledges argument 28, 25, prevailing party, assert judgment. Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 475, 1153, 1156, 491 (1970). noted, settled practice jurisdiction, exceptional coming courts, considers petitioner appellant pressed passed below." McGoldrick Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 430, 434, 60 670, 672, 849 (1940); Heckler Campbell, 461 458, 468-469, 12, 1952, 1958, 76 (1983) (Court "in cases"). deprival qualifies review claim. portion reads entirety: "Mr. Rogers prosecutor]: We're dealing seven eight-year-old think matter maybe them you they're still up determine, understand, decision. Court: Okay. Let's bring time. get Mr. back courtroom we're interviewing chambers. Embry [respondent's attorney]: don't problem Judge. Sergio, going talk really enough understand sort thing they'll [sic] outside. bit. Stincer: (phonetic). Embry: guess he's saying Judge, wishes you'd probably handle it. interviewed only. everyone. Right, just— I'll let protect my client, stay. Fine. Overruled. in." App. 1-2. succinct below: "A pivotal. sine qua non prosecution's appellant's "Although recognizes problems pressures encountered

Category: 0