Court Opinion

ID: 9794231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:01:42.676489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:12.436875
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring):
I concur in the opinion of Justice Howe. I write only to express my view on a point not reached by the majority — the correctness of the trial court’s determination that the hearsay testimony could be admitted because the child witness was “not available to testify in court,” as that term is used in section 76-5-411(l)(b) of the Code. I conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that the child was constitutionally “unavailable”; therefore, even if the hearsay evidence had been reliable, it should not have been admitted under section 76-5-411(1) in lieu of in-person testimony by the child. See State v. Webb, 779 P.2d 1108, 1109-1113 & n. 6 (1989).
STEWART, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.