Court Opinion

ID: 9662693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:15:40.304163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:41.418788
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The State urges this Court to remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on the unavailability of the child complainant and to reconsider our finding that the expert witness testimony was inadmissible or, alternatively, to conduct a harm analysis concerning the expert witness testimony.
The State cites the cases of Hightower v. State, 822 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), and Driggers v. State, 940 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, pet. refd), in support of its motion to remand to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of the unavailability of the child complainant to testify.
In Hightower, the issue was whether the trial court had complied with the constitutional requirements of Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990), requiring a court to hear evidence and make specific findings to authorize closed-circuit television testimony by a child. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated the trial court had not complied with these requirements, but also noted the trial court did not have the benefit of the Craig opinion before it proceeded. Hightower, 822 S.W.2d at 51. Therefore, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abated the appeal and authorized the trial court to conduct such a hearing and enter findings and conclusions.
In Driggers, the trial court had conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to allow closed-circuit testimony of a child. The trial court granted the motion. This Court concluded such oral finding by the court was inadequate and abated the case for more specific findings.
We find those two cases altogether different from the case at bar. Unlike High-tower, the law did not change in this case after trial. The statutory requirement for the court to make a determination of unavailability of a child before allowing an alternate method for the child’s testimony has been in effect in this state for many years. This statutory requirement has not been fulfilled, and the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence without complying with the statute.
In Driggers, the trial court had conducted an evidentiary hearing and made a determination. This is also different from the present case, where no evidence was presented to the court and no hearing was conducted. Here, there is nothing on which to base a determination by the trial court that the child was unavailable.
As we do not believe it is appropriate at this late date to abate this appeal, it is unnecessary to conduct a harm analysis concerning the expert testimony. We have specified the inadmissible portions of the testimony of the expert witnesses to assist in any further proceedings.
The State’s motion for rehearing is denied.