Court Opinion

ID: 9528454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:20.951468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:53.560579
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge:
Specially Concurring.
I concur in the Court’s decision in this case and agree that 22 O.S.Supp.1984, § 753, is constitutional on its face but must be applied in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990), and Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988), to pass constitutional review. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that it is the special procedure itself that ensures the reliability of this type of evidence and allows it to be admitted. See Craig, 497 U.S. at-, 110 S.Ct. at 3169, 111 L.Ed.2d at 686. To ensure a complete record which will expedite review on appeal I feel the Court should direct, or at least encourage, the trial judge to prepare a written order at the completion of the hearing which sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the decision to allow the recorded testimony to be admitted pursuant to Section 753.