Court Opinion

ID: 9769180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:37:09.873221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:56.984160
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I agree with the majority that our holding in Cogburn v. State, 292 Ark. 564, 732 S.W.2d 807 (1987), mandates that this case be reversed and remanded. However, I believe we were wrong to decide Cogburn as we did and that mistake should be corrected rather than further compounded. I would overrule Cogburn and affirm. We have established by several holdings that a statement by a child under ten years of age describing sexual offenses against such child is admissible in any criminal proceeding as an exception to the hearsay rule, provided the court finds the statement is trustworthy in accordance with A.R.E. Rule 803(25)(A)(1). Harris v. State, 295 Ark. 456, 748 S.W.2d 666 (1988); Smart v. State, 291 Ark. 324, 761 S.W.2d 915 (1988). Thus, the basis for the exclusion in Cogburn was not the evidence itself, but the form in which it existed, that is, videotape. In other words, the juvenile probation officer could have testified to exactly what the child told her concerning the sexual offenses and who committed them, but because the same statements were recorded on videotape, it was reversible error to admit them as evidence. In reaching that conclusion, this Court in Cogburn mistakenly held that failure to follow the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-44-203 (1987), which provides for videotaped depositions of minors in sexual offense prosecutions, prevented the admissibility of the videotaped statement of the child witness. A videotaped deposition is not hearsay. It is akin to in-court testimony. The statements made in the Cogburn video were out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted and fall clearly within our established exception to the hearsay rule in A.R.E. Rule 803(25)(A). It makes no sense to me to conclude, as in Cogburn, that the witness could testify to what the child told her, but the jurors could not see and hear for themselves exactly what the child said and observe the child’s demeanor as she made her statement. A trial has been aptly described as a search for the truth. Perry v. Leeke, __U.S__, 109 S. Ct. 594 (1989); State v. Tipton, 300 Ark. 211, 779 S.W.2d 138(1989). It seems apparent the truth would be far better served by permitting the jurors to draw their own conclusions from the videotape.