Court Opinion

ID: 9884126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:39:30.715855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:35.781939
License: Public Domain

OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of second degree criminal sexual conduct involving his daughter. Appellant alleges that he was convicted based on the trial court’s improper admission of his daughter’s out-of-court statements and insufficient evidence. We remand.
FACTS
Following marriage dissolution proceedings, appellant’s three-year-old daughter B.L.L. remained in her mother’s custody, subject to visitation by appellant. In late April, 1987, B.L.L. complained to her mother of being sore. B.L.L. was taken to a clinic where a medical assistant tested and visually inspected B.L.L. The inspection revealed genital swelling and “redness.” Upon questioning of B.L.L. by the medical assistant, B.L.L. stated that appellant had touched her genitals with his own on more than one occasion and that appellant had put B.L.L. on his couch and rubbed her stomach until the skin peeled.
*595Subsequently, a child protection specialist who interviewed B.L.L. was told that somebody had abused her in her father’s living room. B.L.L. indicated this had happened more than once. Also, a psychologist hired by appellant to evaluate B.L.L. indicated there was a “high probability” B.L.L. had been abused, but the psychologist did not identify the alleged abuser.
In August, 1987, B.L.L.' began weekly therapy with another psychologist. In late October, B.L.L. indicated she had been abused in her father’s bedroom. A late November interview of B.L.L. by a police officer, a child protection specialist and B.L.L.’s mother was videotaped. It included allegations of abuse and demonstrations thereof with anatomically correct dolls. Three weeks later, appellant was charged with criminal sexual conduct.
In mid-June 1988, after an omnibus hearing at which the parties stipulated that B.L.L. was incompetent to testify, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress B.L.L.’s out-of-court statements with the exception of the videotape, on which the trial court reserved judgment. In making its determination, the court noted the parties’ stipulation regarding competency and granted appellant’s motion for a partial continuance based on the state’s indication that it did not intend to call the then five-year-old B.L.L. at trial.
After the remainder of the omnibus hearing in late August, the trial court ruled the videotape inadmissible. Appellant then obtained permission to admit the videotape. He also sought and was granted a determination that B.L.L. was competent to testify because he was thinking of calling her as a witness. At trial B.L.L.’s out-of-court statements were presented and the videotape was shown to the jury, but neither party called B.L.L. to testify. A jury found appellant guilty of a single act of second degree criminal sexual conduct.
ISSUES
1. Did the trial court err in admitting B.L.L.’s out-of-court statements?
2. Is the evidence sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction?
3.Was appellant denied a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to honor appellant’s challenge of a juror for cause?
ANALYSIS
I.
In Minnesota,
[a]n out-of-court statement made by a child under the age of ten years * * * alleging, explaining, denying, or describing any act of sexual contact or penetration performed with or on the child or any act of physical abuse of the child * * * by another, not otherwise admissible by statute or rule of evidence, is admissible as substantive evidence if:
[[Image here]]
(b) the child * * * either:
(i) testifies at the proceedings; or
(ii) is unavailable as a witness and there is corroborative evidence of the act; * * *
Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3(b) (1988). Appellant claims that the admission of B.L. L.’s out-of-court statements when B.L.L. was available to testify, but did not do so, violated his right to confrontation and deprived him of due process of law.
Regarding B.L.L.’s failure to testify after being determined competent to do so, we note, first, that when the trial court made its determination, the state failed to move for a continuance to integrate into its case the testimony of B.L.L. required under Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3(b)(i) for B.L.L.’s out-of-court statements to be admitted and, second, that the state subsequently failed to have B.L.L. testify. These events indicate that the state was not completely aware that the trial court’s competency ruling implied that if B.L.L. did not testify, her out-of-court statements could not be properly admitted. Additionally, we note the trial court’s statement regarding B.L.L.’s competency determination:
Of course, it is understood that neither party — if the court finds [B.L.L.] is competent, neither party has to call her if they don’t wish to do so.
*596Thus, it appears that the import of the ruling that B.L.L. was competent to testify was not fully explored by the trial court either.
A. RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 62-63, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (citations omitted); see also State v. Conklin, 444 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Minn.1989). However,
the right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. But its denial or significant diminution calls into question the ultimate “integrity of the fact-finding process” and requires that the competing interest be closely examined.
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (internal citations omitted, quoting Berger v. California, 393 U.S. 314, 315, 89 S.Ct. 540, 541, 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (1969)). Before trial, appellant moved for
an [ojrder denying the admissibility of the out of court statements of the alleged victim because the admissibility of the statements would violate [appellant’s] constitutional right of confrontation in light of the fact that [the state] does not intend to call the alleged victim, [B.L.L.] as a witness because he believes she is incompetent.
Also, denial of appellant’s right to confrontation was argued at both omnibus hearings. Therefore, given the constitutional aspects of the issue and despite the fact that appellant did not directly address the confrontation issue for a third time at trial, we believe the issue sufficiently preserved to be addressed on appeal. See State v. Cash, 391 N.W.2d 875, 880 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (where defendant’s objection at omnibus hearing to admission of evidence was sustained but defendant failed to object at trial when the evidence was nevertheless introduced, issue of admissibility of the evidence sufficiently preserved for appeal); State v. Marty, 376 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 17, 1986) (evidentiary issue properly before this court where defendant objected at state’s first unsuccessful attempt to enter evidence but not a later successful attempt).
The state argues that B.L.L. was actually unavailable to testify because of “the State’s undisguised intention to proceed without ever calling her due to her tender age.” This argument on appeal reinforces our concern that neither the prosecutor nor the trial court fully considered how the determination that B.L.L. was competent affected the admissibility of her out-of-court statements under section 595.-02, subd. 3(b). We are unable to discern the basis for B.L.L.’s continued unavailability if, in fact, she was appropriately declared competent to testify.
The state also argues that B.L.L. was unavailable to testify because of the stipulation. We cannot agree. As articulated by the prosecutor at the first omnibus hearing, the parties’ stipulation was:
For the purpose of this hearing only the state is claiming and I believe the defense will agree * * * that the issue of incompetency of the witness which is one of the requirements to be shown in order to admit out-of-court testimony is admitted. The issue before the court * *• * is the reliability of the facts and circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements * * *
(Emphasis added). The limited nature of the parties’ stipulation is highlighted by the resulting court order stating:
That for purposes of this hearing the parties have assumed that the child victim, who is under 10 years of age, is incompetent to testify in the trial.
Additionally, this interpretation of the stipulation is consistent with that of defense counsel who, at the second omnibus hearing, stated:
*597I have stipulated for the purpose of [the first omnibus hearing] and the matter for which we are here on the statute that the child is incompetent, both are left open to say the child is competent for testifying so arguably both of us would bring the child here, me by subpoena and him with or without. There could have to be a competency hearing and only this court would decide whether the child could testify.
(Emphasis added). Finally, after the second omnibus hearing, the trial court ruled that
assuming the unavailability of the victim, the [appellant’s] motion to suppress * * * out of court statements * * * is denied.
(Emphasis added). In the face of such a record, we cannot conclude that the parties’ stipulation was for anything other than the omnibus hearings. As such, the stipulation did not extend to trial.
Alternatively, the state argues that because “the Confrontation Clause only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross examination * * Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 89, 51, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S.Ct. 292, 294, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985) (emphasis in original)) and because B.L.L. was present and available to testify if appellant called her, the state satisfied its duty of “producing” B.L.L. under Roberts. The state’s argument regarding production of B.L.L. has superficial appeal, especially in view of the fact that appellant himself sought the determination of competency and had indicated that he might wish to call B.L.L. as a witness. It may be argued that appellant, by his actions, has divested himself of any right to complain that the state must call this competent witness.
However, we believe if B.L.L. were available, her out-of-court statements could be admitted only if she testified. The obligation to assure presentation of that testimony is on the state. Only by complying with the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3(b) could the state properly fulfill its duty to “prove every ingredient of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 215, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2329, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). If appellant were required to call B.L.L. in his case in order to cross-examine her, he would discharge the state’s burden of meeting the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 595.02 and, in a very real sense, strengthen and further the case against himself. Appellant cannot be placed in a position whereby his election to exercise his constitutional right of cross-examination forces him to waive his right to have the state call its “available” witness(es) against him. See Lowrey v. State, 757 S.W.2d 358 (Tex.Cr.App.1988); Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).1
B. RESIDUAL EXCEPTION 803(24)
The state argues that even if B.L. L.’s out-of-court statements were not admissible under the statute, they were admissible under Minn.R.Evid. 803(24)’s residual exception to the hearsay rule. We disagree.2 To allow admission of the evidence in question under Minn.R.Evid. 803(24) would allow the state to circumvent the legislature’s explicit directive that such evidence is admissible only if the victim either testifies or is unavailable to do so. The rule was not enacted for this type of evi-*598dentiary arbitrage and to allow it would effectively moot the statute’s alternative requirements. See State v. Campbell, 299 Or. 633, 640, 705 P.2d 694, 699 (1985) (“Because the legislature specifically restricted hearsay evidence of sexual misconduct, the trial [court] erred in admitting the hearsay testimony under the ‘catch all’ exception [to the hearsay rule] * * *”).
II.
The state claims that even if the out-of-court statements were improperly admitted, the remaining evidence was sufficient to convict appellant. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, an appellate court must determine
whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged * * *. [An appellate court] must take the view of the evidence most favorable to the state and assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence. * * * If the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty, that verdict will not be reversed.
State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 111 (Minn.1978) (citations omitted). “Evidence admitted in violation of the confrontation clause is not harmless error unless the evidence in other respects is overwhelming.” State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96, 105 (Minn.1981).
Because appellant was denied his right to confront B.L.L.,
[a]n assessment of harmlessness cannot include consideration of whether the witness’s testimony would have been unchanged, or the jury's assessment unaltered, had there been confrontation; such an inquiry would obviously involve pure speculation, and harmlessness must therefore be determined on the basis of the remaining evidence.
Coy v. Iowa, — U.S. —, —, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2803, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). Here the parties agree that if requirements of Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3(b) are not met, the only admissible evidence is B.L.L.’s statements to the medical assistant which are admissible as statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis, see Minn.R. Evid. 803(4). While B.L.L.’s statements to the medical assistant named appellant as the perpetrator,
[s]uch statements regarding who caused [the] injuries generally are not admissible because they are irrelevant to medical diagnosis and treatment.
State v. Bellotti, 383 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. April 24, 1986) (citation omitted).
In State v. Dana, 422 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn.1988), and State v. Bellotti, 383 N.W.2d at 312, admission of the name of the alleged perpetrator through medical records was held to be harmless error. However, in neither Dana nor Bellotti was the identity of the alleged abuser found to be at issue. See Dana, 422 N.W.2d at 250; Bellotti, 383 N.W.2d at 312. Further, in both cases the other evidence was substantial. See Dana, 422 N.W.2d at 247-48 (warranted search of premises where alleged abuse took place revealed physical evidence and photographs corroborating victims’ stories); Bellotti, 383 N.W.2d at 311 (defendant confesses to “touching” victims and states that he “couldn’t explain his actions”). In this case, because of certain references in the record to an unidentified person, “Chiney,” the identity of the alleged abuser is not completely certain. Additionally, upon exclusion of the contested out-of-court statements, the remaining evidence in this case is considerably weaker than that in either Dana or Bellotti. Significantly, exclusion of the out-of-court statements eliminates any direct reference to appellant as the abuser. We are disinclined, on the strength of the record before us, to extend the rationale of the Dana and Bellotti cases to the extent necessary to affirm this conviction.
Our hesitancy to affirm this conviction has a mirror image, however. In view of the record before us, and especially in view of what we conclude may be a flawed com*599petency determination, we are equally hesitant to reverse and remand for a new trial. Mindful of the supreme court’s admonition in State v. Burns, 394 N.W.2d 495, 497 (Minn.1986) that “a new trial is not necessary if some other lesser remedy * * * would be more appropriate,” we re-examine that portion of the record which is the genesis for both the error and the insufficient evidence perceived by this court earlier in this opinion.
Under the dichotomy of Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3(b)(i) and (ii), B.L.L.’s out-of-court statements were admissible only if she either testified or was unavailable to do so. Here, the trial court’s ruling that B.L.L. was competent removed her from the “unavailable” category, see Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3 (“An unavailable witness includes an incompetent witness”) and thus made her testimony indispensable for the admission of her out-of-court statements. The trial court’s declaration that “neither party * * * has to call [B.L.L.] if they don’t wish to do so” suggests that it may not have considered that once B.L.L. was found competent to testify, her out-of-court statements could be received into evidence only if, in fact, she did testify. Such a consideration is implicit in a competency determination in a case where admission of evidence under section 595.02, subd. 3 is also involved.3 We cannot be certain what the trial court’s ruling regarding B.L.L.’s competency would have been had it focused on the statutory effect that ruling would have had on the prerequisites for admission of her out-of-court statements. Our uncertainty as to the range of factors considered by the trial court when it answered the question “Is B.L.L. competent?” requires a remand. Our attempt to comply with the dictates of Burns convinces us that the remand should not be for a new trial, but for a clarification by the trial court of the basis for its competency determination and a demonstration of its recognition of the impact of a finding of competency in light of Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3(b).4
III.
Finally, appellant argues that, because the trial court erred in denying one of his challenges of a juror for cause, he was “deprived of his right to a fair trial.”
To successfully appeal based on juror bias,
appellant must show that the challenged juror was subject to challenge for cause, that actual prejudice resulted from the failure to dismiss, and that appropriate objection was made by appellant.
State v. Stufflebean, 329 N.W.2d 314, 317 (Minn.1983). Additionally,
[t]he [trial] judge, * * * should be given deference in determining if a juror should be removed for cause.
State v. Graham, 371 N.W.2d 204, 206 (Minn.1985).
Because the challenged juror indicated that her strong feelings regarding sex abuse cases could possibly affect her ap*600proach to the case, she was challenged for cause under Minn.R.Crim.P. 26.02, subd. 5(1) which allows a challenge for:
[t]he existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror, in reference to the ease or to either party, which satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.
Upon voir dire, the juror indicated that she “would try” to be unbiased, that she had success doing so in the past and that she did not have “any difficulty with the concept that the purpose of a juror is to determine whether or not there was abuse.” However, she subsequently stated that her sympathy for abuse victims “may” get in the way of impartially determining whether abuse had occurred, but that she would “try to set it aside.” The trial court then denied appellant’s challenge of the juror for cause.
It has been stated that [t]he test of an impartial juror is * * * that he “can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.”
State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394, 165 N.W.2d 528, 534 (1969) (quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)). More recently, the supreme court has indicated:
If * * * the jurors indicate their intention to set aside any preconceived notions, and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the trial judge that they are able to do so, [an appellate court] will not lightly substitute its own judgment.
State v. Howard, 324 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn.1982) (emphasis added). Additionally, this court has held:
A juror must simply undertake to try the case fairly, and the trial judge, being in the best position to observe the demeanor of the prospective juror, is to be given deference in determining whether the juror should be removed for cause.
State v. Alladin, 408 N.W.2d 642, 650 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 12, 1987) (emphasis added). Considering the juror’s indication that she intended to put her feelings aside and that she had successfully done so in the past, we conclude that the juror had the requisite intent and ability to be impartial required by Andrews and Alladin. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s challenge of the juror for cause. In view of our determination that the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the juror, we need not address the issue of whether actual prejudice resulted from the trial court’s failure to dismiss the juror.
DECISION
Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser was violated by the trial court’s admission of B.L.L.’s out-o'f-court statements where B.L.L. neither testified nor was unavailable to testify. This constitutional defect was not remedied by the fact that appellant could have called B.L.L. to testify, as this fact put appellant in a quandry by requiring him to choose between his right to have the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and his right to confront his accuser. Because the excision of B.L.L.’s out-of-court statements, required for compliance with Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3, reduces the record to a level which does not support the conviction, and because of the trial court’s and the parties’ failure to focus on implications of the competency determination, we must remand for a re-enunciation of the basis for the trial court’s determination that B.L.L. was competent to testify.
Remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

. Appellant alleges that denial of his confrontation clause rights also denies him due process. Logically, if due process requires a fair trial, State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 120, 114 N.W.2d 267, 273 (1962), and a fair trial requires the rights of confrontation and cross-examination, Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540, 106 S.Ct. 2056, 2061-62, 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986), the denial of appellant’s sixth amendment rights also denied him a fair trial and hence due process.

. Our analysis assumes that Minn.R.Evid. 803(24) is applicable to the instant case. The comment to the rule states that "[Rule 803(24) ] defines the common law power of the judge to fashion new exceptions to the hearsay doctrine." (Emphasis added.) Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 3 “is a legislative enactment of an exception to the hearsay rule.” State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821, 825 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. March 27, 1986). Arguably, an exception to the hearsay rule involving circumstances already covered by the statute may not be “new” and therefore not be covered by this exception to the hearsay rule.

. We are aware that under Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(Z) (1988),
[a] child under ten years of age is a competent witness unless the court finds that the child lacks the capacity to remember or to relate truthfully facts respecting which the child is examined.
However, because protection of a child sex abuse victim from the trauma of testimony has been recognized as an important public policy, see Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 4 (1988) (provision for video/close circuit testimony of a child victim where normal testimonial circumstances might "psychologically traumatize the witness so as to render the witness unavailable") and Coy v. Iowa,-U.S.-,-, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2805, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (O’Connor, J. concurring) (protection of a child sex abuse victim from the trauma of testimony is “an important public policy" and a "compelling state interest”), we believe that the testimonial ramifications on a child of determining that child to be competent to testify must also be considered in determining whether he or she is actually competent to testify.

. On remand the trial court should re-enunciate and clarify the basis for its original competency determination. If that re-enunciation and clarification demonstrates actual consideration of the testimonial ramifications on the child of the competency determination, the original determination should stand and a new trial be granted. If the re-enunciation and clarification demonstrates that the competency determination was made without such consideration, the trial court should then re-evaluate its original competency determination.