Court Opinion

ID: 9485106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 10:38:45.827052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:47.534830
License: Public Domain

FLOYD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
Although I concur in the judgment, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s *205decision to reach the Confrontation Clause issue.
As we recognized in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. City Of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150 (4th Cir.2010), “the principle of constitutional avoidance ... requires the federal courts to strive to avoid rendering constitutional rulings unless absolutely necessary.” Id. at 156-57. “It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the majority states that any error in regards to a Confrontation Clause violation is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with this determination. Hence, because I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary to resolve a thorny issue such as this in what is an evolving area of constitutional law, I would decline to address the alleged Confrontation Clause violation.