Court Opinion

ID: 9739092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:08:38.346386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.724319
License: Public Domain

WAHL, Justice
(dissenting).
I join both the dissents of Justice Yetka and Justice Coyne. I write only to emphasize the narrowness of the Minnesota Statute’s interference with defendant’s constitutionally protected right to confrontation. Although the defendant was removed, the statute preserves his rights to cross-examination and to have the jury evaluate the witness’s demeanor in person. The statute addresses the unique difficulties inherent in eliciting testimony regarding sexual abuse from young children, which the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated is appropriate and consistent with its holding in Coy v. Iowa, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988).