Court Opinion

ID: 9863149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:08:16.212841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:44.397495
License: Public Domain

BENAVIDES, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that face-to-face confrontation between child witness and appellant was not required by the Sixth Amendment in this case. I am also willing to accept the conclusion that Texas constitutional law, like its federal counterpart, does not absolutely forbid testimonial procedures other than face-to-face confrontation. I write separately to elaborate my own reasons for thinking that the constitutionality of alternative testimonial procedures does not depend upon the existence of enabling legislation, and that Article 38.-071 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not represent an exhaustive treatment of Texas public policy for purposes of constitutional interpretation.
Trial judges have inherent authority to receive evidence. No special legislation is necessary. If it were, virtually every kind of evidence would be objectionable upon the ground that a statute did not specifically allow it. But our system of adjudication does not work in this way. Unless the law excludes evidence, or makes it excludable at the option of a litigant, trial courts are free to receive it. Hence, it is not improper for a trial judge to permit the testimony of senior citizens through megaphones in jaywalking cases even without prior legislative approval. Nor, likewise, is the lack of specific statutory authority for receiving the testimony of nonvictim child witnesses over closed-circuit television in murder cases a bar to its admissibility. Some ground other than the absence of enabling legislation must form the basis for any objection to evidence in the courts of this State.
In the present context, appellant does not urge a bar to the testimony here in question other than the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Certainly a trial judge may not receive evidence in violation of these fundamental rights. But, insofar as the latter is concerned, I join the majority in its conclusion that Texas constitutional law has never really considered a face-to-face encounter absolutely essential to compliance with its Confrontation Clause. And, in case of the former, I am convinced that the question was authoritatively resolved contrary to appellant’s position in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990).
*767Although the procedure at issue in Craig was prescribed by statute, there is nothing in the majority opinion there to suggest that the decision “whether use of the procedure is necessary to further an important state interest” must be made by the legislature. 110 S.Ct. at 3167. As I read the Court's opinion, so long as it is apparent that a state regards the welfare of its children as an important social interest, the need for and manner of implementing alternative testimonial procedures to effectuate that interest in individual cases is largely a question of fact to be resolved by trial judges under the test announced therein. Id. at 3169. Mandatory procedures enacted by the legislature can only serve to restrict the range of additional choices not offensive to the Confrontation Clause which might otherwise be available to the trial-level judiciary.
This is undoubtedly the effect of Article 38.071. The procedure set out in that or in any other constitutionally acceptable statute would certainly be available to trial judges even absent legislation. Since alternative testimonial procedures which violate the Confrontation Clause cannot be authorized by statute at all, and those consistent with the Clause are not objectionable on confrontation grounds anyway, the question whether an alternative testimonial procedure is offensive to constitutional confrontation guarantees ultimately has nothing whatever to do with the existence of a statute purporting to authorize it. The essential holding of Craig makes this clear:
[W]here necessary to protect a child witness from trauma that would be caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant, at least where such trauma would impair the child’s ability to communicate, the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit use of a procedure that, despite the absence of face-to-face confrontation, ensures the reliability of the evidence by subjecting it to rigorous adversarial testing and thereby preserves the essence of effective confrontation.
Id. at 3170.
I am unable to find in this rule any requirement, either express or implied, that the alternative procedures to which the Supreme Court there referred must first be approved by a state legislature before they may be found acceptable to the Constitution of the United States. Neither can I discern any principled basis for thinking that the constitutional rule is, or ought to be, confined to victim witnesses or to cases of sexually abused children. Rather, both by its terms and by its rationale, the rule is applicable to all children testifying in criminal cases and to all alternative testimonial procedures, whether imposed by the legislature or by the courts.
The contrary suggestion advanced by Judge Baird in his dissenting opinion fails to persuade me because his argument critically depends upon two circumstances which I find insignificant. He claims that, because Craig actually involved an alternative testimonial approach specifically authorized by statute, and because such statutes have become commonplace around the country, the Supreme Court must have intended to limit the scope of its holding to statutory procedures. However, I find very little practical reason for thinking this to be so, and no logical compulsion in the argument at all.
In the first place, appearance of the issue in context of a statute seems to me entirely fortuitous. I cannot imagine that the same procedures would have been thought to present a significantly different constitutional question when implemented by a trial judge on his own authority. Moreover, reference in its opinion to the relative ubiquity of similar legislation throughout the country simply cites widespread acceptance of the practice, and does not amount to a decision by the Supreme Court that state policy can only be expressed by its legislature, a question plainly beyond that Court’s authority in any event. So far as I can discern, it is simply irrelevant for confrontation purposes who authorized the procedure in question.
Of course, I agree that the courts should not establish basic public policy in Texas. But courts must necessarily look to find that policy when pertinent to the resolution of legal disputes. The question of policy under Craig is not whether the people of Texas have opted to suspend the Confron*768tation Clause in specific, well-defined cases. They are not at liberty to do that in any event. See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012,108 S.Ct. 2798,101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). Rather, the Craig holding seems to me more interested in generalized, widely accepted policies of sufficient social importance to justify careful and limited exceptions on an individual basis to the otherwise absolute constitutional requirement of confrontation in the flesh. That such an interest exists in Texas for the protection of children seems past meaningful dispute to me. Whether the general requirement that all testimony be given in the defendant’s presence should be compromised for the sake of a particular child is a question for the trial court.
If the legislature had elsewhere clearly expressed a policy that no courtroom testimony should be allowed except in the physical presence of the defendant, I might be inclined to think that Article 38.071 was meant as a list of specific exceptions to that general rule. But, in this instance, the general rule is expressed only in the Constitution, and the legislature has no authority to make exceptions. It follows that Article 38.071 cannot seriously be taken as an attempt by the legislature to prohibit the use of closed-circuit television except under the enumerated circumstances. If that were the case, one might have expected it to say so explicitly, rather than to list exceptions against an unarticulated policy. And, although Article 38.071 might actually have been intended to limit the Constitution, it clearly cannot be effective to such end. Consequently, the only permissible interpretation of the statute, no matter how counterintuitive, is that it prescribes a specific alternative testimonial procedure under certain defined circumstances, leaving the courts free to develop different procedures under other circumstances, constrained only by constitutional prohibitions. In short, the contention that Article 38.071 has anything to do with the issue before us is just mistaken. The essential question presented is solely a matter of constitutional exegesis, and does not involve statutory interpretation at all.
Be that as it may, I sympathize with the concerns expressed by Judge Clinton in his dissenting opinion. Of course, to the extent he may believe that enabling legislation is necessary for the procedure employed in this case, I disagree for the reasons already expressed. But, inasmuch as he intimates that this Court should avoid sanctioning the receipt of evidence tendered under a statute which plainly does not cover it, his point has an appealing aroma. Here, the State, as proponent of the evidence, expressly did rely upon Article 38.071 for its admissibility. Yet, as repeatedly noted here and in the dissenting opinions, that statute does not approve the procedure in question.
Nevertheless, our jurisprudence requires that a well-founded complaint be made at trial as a prerequisite to the assignment of judicial error on appeal. For present purposes, the only complaints which have reached us on discretionary review are that the procedure in question violated appellant’s rights of confrontation and the terms of Article 38.071. Because I am convinced that no such violations occurred in this case, I am obliged also to conclude that appellant’s trial objections were not well-founded. Accordingly, the judge did not err, in my opinion, to overrule them.
The only remaining questions are whether the trial judge in the instant cause made the findings required by Craig, and whether those findings, if made, are adequately supported by the record. Again, I am satisfied that the evidence adduced by the State on this matter was sufficient to support a finding by the judge that face-to-face confrontation of appellant would have been severely traumatic to the witness, that an alternative procedure was necessary (not just a convenience to the witness), and that the alternative procedure actually employed was adequate to ensure effective, contemporaneous cross examination of her testimony by the appellant and meaningful observation of her testimonial demeanor by the jury. Moreover, even though the trial of this case predated Craig by more than a year, it appears that the judge did in fact base his decision to allow the alternative procedure upon findings sufficiently like those required by Craig as to satisfy, in *769my judgement, all pertinent concerns of the Confrontation Clause.
This, I believe, is the essential teaching of Craig, that exceptions to physical confrontation be made by trial judges on an individual basis, and not, as in Coy, by legislatures on a generic basis. This is as it should be. Evidentiary rulings and decisions about courtroom procedure fall within the province of the trial judge, who has broad discretion in such matters. Indeed, he is constrained only by rules of law, the constitution and his own sense of fairness. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Kimithi v. State, 546 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Therefore, he may incorporate modem technology into courtroom procedure in any manner consonant with such limitations.
While the United States and Texas constitutions afford a criminal defendant the right to confront his accuser, that right does not absolutely require the defendant and the witness to be in the same room. Modem technology has facilitated a less traumatic confrontation for child witnesses. Under appropriate circumstances, such as those present in this case, I believe the alternative is constitutional.
For these reasons, I concur in the judgement of the Court.
CAMPBELL and OVERSTREET, JJ., join.