Court Opinion

ID: 9863661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:50:25.690476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:06.027091
License: Public Domain

A. JOHNSON, Judge,
Specially Concurs.
T1 I agree that Folks's conviction should be affirmed. I write to emphasize that admission of the videotaped forensic interview containing testimonial hearsay of the child victim in this ease did not pose a Confrontation Clause problem because the child victim testified at trial and was subject to cross examination. Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), a testimonial, out-of-court statement offered against an accused to establish the truth of the matter asserted may be admitted only where the declarant is unavailable and where the accused has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Crawford states, however, that "when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements." Id. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. at 1369 n. 9, citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). Statements made by a child vie-tim during a forensic interview in a child abuse investigation constitute testimonial hearsay in the criminal trial of the alleged perpetrator. If the child victim is unavailable at trial, the defendant must have been afforded a prior opportunity to confront the child victim about his or her statement before the statement would be admissible at trial.