Court Opinion

ID: 9747846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:38:47.455793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:27.883676
License: Public Domain

STUMBO, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I must dissent from the majority’s holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the unredacted recorded testimony of Mary Wood.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees *830that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with witnesses against him.” To overcome this guarantee there must be a viable exception. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990).
In this case, the Commonwealth presented an affidavit and the trial judge made a personal inquiry as to Ms. Wood’s unavailability. Satisfied that Ms. Wood was indeed unavailable, the trial judge permitted admission of Ms. Wood’s prior testimony via videotape.
If the only issue was whether Ms. Wood was successfully characterized as an unavailable witness, Appellant’s argument would fail. The trial judge was satisfied that the Commonwealth adequately demonstrated Ms. Wood’s unavailability, thus meeting the rule of necessity required by the Confrontation Clause. Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).
However, the issue in this case is whether it was error to include all prior testimony given by Ms. Wood. The second prong of the Confrontation Clause test requires that before admission of testimony from an unavailable witness there must be an “indi-cia of reliability.” Roberts, supra, at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531. Defense counsel objected to the inclusion of that portion of Ms. Wood’s prior testimony containing her confession that was obtained during “custodial interrogation.”
Traditionally, statements obtained through the use of leading questions regarding a serious crime and the role of a party in that crime have been viewed by the courts as unreliable. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). A review of the totality of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Wood’s confession, including: the immanency of the charges; her co-defendant status; the participants’ tendency to shift blame; and the omission of the procedural safeguards of oath and limited or- restricted cross-examination, all create doubt as to any “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Roberts, supra, at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531.
Ms. Wood’s unavailability denied Appellant the opportunity to confront his accuser at his third trial. The trial court believed there was sufficient evidence to overcome the denial of Appellant’s Sixth Amendment guarantee. I disagree. Ms. Wood’s confession did not bear any “indi-cia of reliability” or “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” and thus was inadmissible.
Defense counsel requested that the confession be redacted from the testimony of the second trial prior to being presented to the jury at Appellant’s third trial. The trial judge’s decision to allow the unredact-ed testimony containing Ms. Wood’s custodial confession denied Appellant his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser and therefore, was reversible error.