Court Opinion

ID: 9648903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:37:48.33697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:06.317578
License: Public Domain

KELLER, J.,
delivered a dissenting opinion.
Appellant sought review of the Court of Appeals holdings affirming the trial court’s televising, via closed-circuit equipment, of the testimonies of two girls — B.J., the thirteen-year-old child victim, and J.M., a six-year-old child witness. Appellant alleged that this procedure violated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 38.071, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority affirms, finding that the statute is not the exclusive authorization for the closed-circuit procedure and that there is no violation of the United States Constitution. I agree with the majority’s assessment that Article 38.071 does not preclude the procedure employed in the present case but I do so for reasons different from those articulated in the lead opinion. And I agree with the majority that using the closed-circuit procedure was constitutionally permissible for B.J.’s testimony. I disagree with the majority, however, regarding the testimony of J.M. Use of the closed-circuit procedure for her testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.
I. ARTICLE 38.071
Article 38.071 applies only to the testimony of child victims twelve years of age or younger:
This article applies only to a proceeding in the prosecution of an offense defined by any of the following sections of the Penal Code if the offense is alleged to have been committed against a child 12 years of age or younger....
Article 38.071 § 1 (ellipsis inserted). Hence, the statute could not authorize the use of closed-circuit televised proceedings for either B.J. or J.M. because B.J. was older than twelve and J.M. was not the victim.
The question in the present case is whether Article 38.071 constitutes the exclusive procedure for using closed-circuit televised testimony. If it does, then the closed-circuit procedure for both B.J. and J.M. was improper as a matter of state law because the requirements of the statute were not met. The starting point in any question of statutory construction is the text of the statute itself. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply the plain meaning of its words. Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785-786 & 786 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). We examine extratextual factors only when the words of the statute are ambiguous or *587the plain meaning would lead to absurd results. Id. In determining plain meaning, “[w]ords and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and usage.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.011(a); Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In addition, we presume that "the entire statute is intended to be effective.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.021(2); Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 258. “Every word in a statute has been used for a purpose and each word, phrase, clause, and sentence should be given effect if reasonably possible.” Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 258; Morter v. State, 551 S.W.2d 715, 718 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), quoting Eddins-Walcher Butane Co. v. Calvert, 156 Tex. 587, 591, 298 S.W.2d 93, 96 (1957).
Read literally, the statute simply does not apply when the child is older than twelve or not the victim, and therefore, the statute cannot limit the State’s ability to procure testimony by such persons. The majority resolves the statutory challenge by holding exactly that: that the statute does not apply to non-victims or to children older than twelve. However, it appears to me that the plain language of the statute would lead to absurd results. If trial courts have the power to provide a closed-circuit procedure apart from the statute and are not bound by the statute’s requirements, then that portion of the statute has no impact in this state; nothing would change if the closed-circuit provision did not exist. Showing, however, that the plain meaning of a statute leads to absurd results does not end the inquiry. Ex-tratextual sources may show that the result is not absurd, after all, or that the Legislature intended the plain meaning despite the absurd result. Hence, an examination of ex-tratextual sources is required.
The Legislature has given some guidance as to the factors we may examine in construing the statute. We may consider, among other matters, the
(1) object sought to be attained;
(2) circumstances under which the statute was enacted;
(3) legislative history;
(4) common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects;
(5) consequences of a particular construction;
(6) administrative construction of the statute; and
(7) title (caption), preamble, and emergency provision.
Tex. Gov’t.Code, § 311.023; Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 364 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).1
The legislative history and the circumstances under which the statute was enacted reveal some clues to its interpretation. Article 38.071 was passed in 1983, long before the advent of the Supreme Court’s decision in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990). Hence, the Legislature did not, through the statute, attempt to codify Supreme Court precedent as no such precedent yet existed.2 The Legislature was, however, concerned about the Confrontation Clause. On the Senate Floor, Senator Parmer, the sponsor of the bill, stated that the proposed law “very narrowly draws the lines and limits for the introduction of such testimony to make sure that we don’t offend the constitutional provisions for confrontation and cross-examination.” Senate Floor, SB 836, May 17, 1983.3 This *588statement could be interpreted as supporting appellant’s position, but other legislative statements and circumstances undercut such an interpretation.
The statute was also enacted before the adoption of the Rules of Criminal Evidence, which were adopted in 1985 and made effective in 1986. During public hearings at the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence, Steve Chaney, then chief of the trial section at the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, testified that the proposed bill would render admissible at trial videotape evidence that grand juries were already permitted to see. Transcript, Senate Committee on Jurisprudence, SB 836, April 19, 1983, p. 6. He stated that the evidence was not admissible at trial because it was hearsay. Transcript, p. 8. On the Senate Floor, before final passage, Senator Parmer echoed that the testimony was, at the time, “available to the grand jury but not available to the trial jury.” Senate Floor, SB 836, May 17, 1983. The bill, and later the statute as enacted, contained provisions regarding the admissibility of prerecorded videotaped testimony as well as provisions for televised live testimony via closed circuit equipment. Senator Parmer referred to both types of testimony as “videotaped” testimony and made no other attempt to distinguish the two. Senate Floor, SB 836, May 17, 1983. At the time Article 38.071 was originally enacted, hearsay was a common-law rule, the precise contours of which were uncertain. See 24 Tex. Jur.2d Evidence §§ 557 and 561.
What can be divined from the circumstances and legislative history is that the Legislature was apparently attempting to create hearsay exceptions that would pass muster under the Confrontation Clause without any real guidance concerning the scope of the hearsay rule or of the Confrontation Clause. The Legislature may have believed that the hearsay rule would bar live closed-circuit testimony as well as prerecorded videotaped testimony. Such a belief would have been erroneous because live closed-circuit testimony is not “out of court” testimony, but such a belief would explain the inclusion of the closed-circuit provision in the statute. Or, the Legislature may have originally drafted the statute to create a hearsay exception just for videotaped testimony, later adding on the closed-circuit testimony provision without contemplating the difference in nature of the two types of testimony.
What is clear from the legislative history, and what is to me dispositive of this aspect of the problem, is that the Legislature intended to expand (rather than restrict) the admissibility of evidence in passing Article 38.071. Therefore, if the courts otherwise have the power to authorize closed-circuit procedures, the Legislature did not intend, in passing Article 38.071, to limit that power.
The question then becomes, do courts have the power, apart from statute, to authorize the use of televised, closed-circuit procedures. The answer is yes. We have recognized that the courts have inherent power over “the everyday administration of justice.” Matckett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922, 932 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 2487, 138 L.Ed.2d 994. Moreover, the Legislature has directed that the courts “control proceedings so that justice is done.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 21.001(b). Hence, absent a constitutional provision, statute, or rule to the contrary, the trial court has the power to control the procedural aspects of a case. One of those procedural aspects is the manner in which witnesses will be required to testify. Therefore Article 38.071 does not bar the procedures employed in the present ease.
II. CONFRONTATION
The Sixth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This right to confrontation was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. *589Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). “The central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before a trier of fact.” Craig, 497 U.S. at 845, 110 S.Ct. 3157. The Confrontation Clause reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial, but that preference must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of the case. Id. at 849, 110 S.Ct. 3157. In Craig, the Supreme Court recognized that the state had an interest in protecting the psychological well-being of child abuse victims which interest may, in the proper case, justify denying face-to-face confrontation. Id. at 853, 110 S.Ct. 3157.
The Confrontation Clause issue presented by this case has two parts: (1) what level of emotional harm must the State show that a child will suffer in order to justify depriving a defendant of his right to a face-to-face confrontation, and (2) is there sufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the child would suffer the requisite level of emotional harm?
A. Degree of emotional harm required
The level of emotional harm required to justify dispensing with face-to-face confrontation is a question of law. I so conclude because the trial court “is not in an appreciably better position to decide the issue,” Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(quoting Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 139 (McCormick, P.J. concurring)), and because this is an issue where uniformity of application is important, see Villarreal, 935 S.W.2d at 148 (Keller, J. concurring). Moreover, the Supreme Court cast the issue as one of law by indicating that it had the authority to decide the level of emotional trauma required to justify avoiding a face-to-face confrontation. Craig, 497 U.S. at 856, 110 S.Ct. 3157.
The Supreme Court did “not decide the minimum showing of emotional trauma” for using a televised, closed-circuit procedure. Id. The Court simply held that “mere nervousness or some reluctance to testify” (a mere due minimis showing) fell below the minimum showing and that “serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate” clearly met constitutional requirements. Id.; see also Gonzales v. State, 818 S.W.2d 756, 762 n. 10 (Tex.Crim.App.l991)(acknowledging that the Supreme Court “was not willing to decide what would suffice to meet this ‘more than de minimis standard’ ”). The question left open is, how much harm must be shown? Is the minimum threshold of emotional distress one that just barely exceeds “mere nervousness or reluctance to testify?” Or is something more required? I believe more is required. “That the face-to-face confrontation requirement is not absolute does not, of course, mean that it may easily be dispensed with.” Id. at 850. Therefore, I would hold that, to pass muster under the Confrontation Clause, the State must show that the child witness would suffer more trauma than a victim of a serious, violent crime would ordinarily feel when facing the perpetrator in court. Any other standard would permit the State to avoid the requirements of the Confrontation Clause as a matter of course. While child victims more often need special protection, denying face-to-face confrontation should still be the exception rather than the rule.4
B. Degree of emotional harm shown
Next, I turn to the second inquiry: is there sufficient evidence to show the requisite degree of harm? This issue is obviously a fact question that requires “almost total deference” to the trial court’s findings. See Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89. Giving almost *590total deference means viewing the evidence in the record “in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.” Id. I now examine the record to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to justify avoiding face-to-face confrontation of B.J. and J.M.
1. B.J.’s testimony
Employing closed-circuit procedures for B.J. does not violate the Confrontation Clause. The record shows that B.J. had learning disabilities and read at a six-year-old’s level. The record also shows that B.J. was very fearful of testifying before appellant, and that such testimony would be traumatic for her. In fact, a teacher testified that “when it’s mentioned she [B.J.] may have to face him [appellant] face to face, she keeps saying T can’t’” (bracketed material inserted). The testimony showed that B.J. cried about the possibility of facing appellant, and there was even evidence that B.J. might suffer physically if she testified. Given evidence of B. J.’s low intellectual functioning for her age, the high level of fear she showed about facing appellant, and other testimony about the harm she would suffer, I agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trial court was within its discretion in conducting the special procedure for her testimony. The record supports a finding that testifying would cause B.J. to suffer more trauma than would ordinarily be suffered by the victim of a serious, violent crime when facing the perpetrator in court.
2. J.M.’s testimony
But J.M.’s testimony is another matter entirely. The State’s evidence concerning J.M. falls primarily in four categories: (1) emotional harm J.M. has suffered as a result of the crime, (2) J.M.’s fear of appellant, (3) the harm J.M. would suffer if she testified, and (4) evidence that it would be better if J.M. testified via the closed-circuit method.
J.M.’s mother testified that J.M. had nightmares and could not sleep in her bed. Further, the mother testified that J.M was scared to go to the bathroom and she wet her bed. Although the State attempted, through its questioning, to link these effects to the upcoming testimony, the witness never provided such a link. In fact, questioning from the trial court established that these symptoms occurred even before the crime was discovered and well prior to the time that J.M. was informed that she would be testifying. Dr. Anita Calvert also testified that J.M. suffered serious emotional damage as a result of the crime. She further testified that J.M. was “a wreck,” that she had problems with trusting people, and that she engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior. Dr. Calvert never testified, however, that any of these symptoms were linked to J.M.’s anticipated testifying; rather, Dr. Calvert testified specifically that the symptoms were attributable to the assaults committed against J.M.
J.M.’s mother also testified that J.M. was scared of appellant but wanted to testify in court:
Q. What has she shown to you?
A. Being scared of him, Jeffrey Marx. But she’s ready for it. She said she wanted to come.
[[Image here]]
Q. And not telling me what she said, but based upon what she has said to you, does she show any sign of being afraid when she talks about what she saw?
A. Some.
Both J.M.’s mother and Dr. Calvert were questioned concerning the emotional harm that would be caused by testifying in appellant’s presence. J.M.’s mother affirmed that J.M. would suffer “some harm” if she testified in appellant’s presence because “she’s scared of him.” The mother further assented that testifying in appellant’s presence “would cause more emotional and psychological trauma.” During cross-examination, however, J.M.’s mother indicated that testifying as a mere witness, instead of as a victim, would pose much less of problem:
Q. And you understand all she’s going to be asked to testify to in this proceeding is what she allegedly saw through some window?
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. You understand the difference now?
*591A. Okay. Well, that does make a difference.
Q. Well, sure. All she’s going to be asked to testify to is what she—
A. Okay. So this isn’t her case?
Q. No.
A. Okay.
Q. It’s [B.J.’s] case.
A. Okay. Well, that she’s okay with. I mean, she’s ready for that.
Q. I mean what she saw hasn’t caused her any kind of emotional distress or problems what she allegedly saw through a window?
A. No. She just — I mean, she could probably do it.
On redirect, J.M.’s mother stated that J.M.’s testifying in appellant’s presence would “probably” traumatize her because “[s]he hasn’t seen the man in almost a year.”
Dr. Calvert stated that J.M. could testify in appellant’s presence with little difficulty:
Q. Doctor, do you feel like if she testifies in open court in the presence of Jeffrey Steven Marx, that she will — the result would cause further serious emotional and physical distress than what she has now.
A. If no one was ugly to her, you know, made her feel really badly about it — I think [J.M.] is more of a talker than most. She will probably come on and do it.
Q. Of course, we can make her do that as you well know, but my concern is what would be the emotional and physical distress that would cause — that would be resulting from her testifying in open court in the presence of another.
A. In the presence of Jeffrey?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. She tells me she wants to. So unless she gets more frightened than I expect, that little girl would probably testify okay.
Dr. Calvert maintained this position in the face of questioning by the trial court:
Q. Do you feel like there would be any emotional or physical trauma if she were to be in confrontation with the defendant in the ordinary involvement in the courtroom trial?
A. You mean if she had to go and interact with him or if she just—
Q. If she had to sit there and testify from the witness stand.
A. I can’t say for sure, but she says she wants to tell what happened, and she’s a very strong little girl, strong-willed child like that.
Q. Do you think she would suffer any emotional or physical problems as a result of that confrontation?
A. I couldn’t guarantee it, but I think— occasionally there’s a child who wants to tell their story.
Q. Listen to my question.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you think that there would be any emotional or physical problems with her confronting — testifying from that witness stand and having to confront [appellant]?
A. Your Honor. I couldn’t say for sure that there would not be. I wouldn’t expect it.
Finally, there was testimony from J.M.’s mother and Dr. Calvert that it would be “better” if J.M. did not testify in appellant’s presence. J.M.’s mother testified in the following exchange:
Q. Now, do you feel like if she testifies— Based on your conversations with her and your knowledge of her, do you feel like if she testifies in open court in the same seat that you’re sitting, in the presence and in the sight of Jeffrey Steven Marx, the defendant in this case, would cause any undue physical or psychological or emotional distress to her?
A. It would be better if she was not in the same presence as him, I think.
Dr. Calvert also opined that it might be “better” if J.M. testified outside appellant’s presence:
Q: Dr. Calvert, if [J.M.] were able to tell her story but not in the physical presence of Jeffrey Steven Marx, via closed-circuit television, do you feel like there would be less trauma, or you could be more assured of less trauma for her to tell her story in that manner than she would if she had to face in the same courtroom Jeffrey Marx?
*592A. She would probably tell it better if she didn’t have to look at him, of course.
[[Image here]]
Q. Do you feel like she would suffer — you said a while ago that you weren’t sure. Do you feel like there would be a less chance of her — or would you be more assured that she would not suffer any serious or emotional or physical distress if she testifies via closed circuit television and not in the presence or the sight of Jeffrey Marx?
A. Obviously there would be less risk if there was going to be any trauma to her, yes.
Having viewed the four categories of evidence presented by the State, I conclude, even in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of the requisite degree of harm that would justify abrogating the accused’s right to face-to-face confrontation. Category (1), the harm caused by the crime, is only tangentially related to the inquiry at hand. That a victim may have suffered serious emotional harm as a result of the crime does not prove that the victim will suffer additional serious emotional harm — greater than that ordinarily suffered by a victim of a serious, violent crime — from testifying in the perpetrator’s presence. At most, it might provide a background in which to assess other evidence directly relevant to the issue. If evidence of emotional trauma resulting from the offense were sufficient to authorize closed-circuit testimony, such would be routinely justified.
Category (4), testimony that it would be “better” for the victim if she testified via closed-circuit television, provides little, if any support for a showing of the requisite degree of harm. That the victim might be “better off” emotionally or could better relate her story does not show that by testifying face-to-face she would suffer an emotional harm greater than that ordinarily suffered by a victim of a serious, violent crime testifying face-to-face. As Dr. Calvert testified, obviously, there would be less risk of trauma from closed-circuit testimony. But, again, if we were to hold that that fact authorized closed-circuit testimony, the procedure would be authorized in virtually every case.
That leaves categories (2) and (3), the victim’s fear of the accused and evidence that testifying in the accused’s presence would cause emotional harm. Category (2) is circumstantial evidence to support emotional harm from testifying while category (3) is direct evidence. None of the evidence fitting these two categories in the present case rises to the requisite degree of harm. At most, the State proved through the mother’s testimony that J.M. would probably suffer some psychological harm if she testified in appellant’s presence. But, the significance of J.M.’s mother’s testimony was seriously undercut after she realized that J.M. would not be testifying on her own case. Moreover, the record is replete with undisputed evidence, from both J.M.’s mother and from Dr. Calvert, that J.M. wanted to testify and was ready to testify in appellant’s presence. And, Dr. Calvert clearly and consistently testified that serious emotional harm from face-to-face testimony was unlikely.
Under these circumstances, even considering together all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the record does not support a conclusion that J.M. would suffer more trauma than a victim of a serious, violent crime would ordinarily feel when facing the perpetrator in court. Henee, I would find that the trial court violated appellant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment when it permitted J.M. to testify via closed-circuit television.
I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to that court to conduct a harm analysis.

. This provision is part of the "Code Construction Act,” which applies to the Code of Criminal Procedure, at least to the extent it has been amended or reenacted by the 60th or subsequent legislature. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.002(2); Ramos, 934 S.W.2d at 364, n. 8; Postell v. State, 693 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Barbee v. State, 432 S.W.2d 78, 82 (Tex.Crim.App.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 924, 89 S.Ct. 1779, 23 L.Ed.2d 241 (1969).

. An example in which the Legislature did codify Supreme Court precedent is Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 37.071 § 2(e), which codi-fled Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989).

.In 1987, the scope of offenses was narrowed from any offense to a list of specified offenses, and a requirement that the child be “unavailable” was added. A number of substantial revisions in other portions of the statute were also made. In addition, the 1987 law contained a "purpose” statement, with even stronger language concerning the intent to conform to the Confrontation Clause. But, that purpose statement carries little, if any, weight on the issue at hand because the changes in the statute do not *588appear to be material to the question of whether the statute is the exclusive method through which closed-circuit procedures may be conducted. "[0]ne session of the legislature does not have the power to declare the intent of a past session, and a legislative construction of an act of another legislature is uniformly held to be entitled to little weight.” Ex parte Schroeter, 958 S.W.2d 811, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).

. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, has recently cautioned that the Craig exception to face-to-face confrontation “is a narrow one”:
It is a dangerous business to water down the confrontation right so dramatically merely because society finds the charged crime particularly reprehensible. Indeed, the more reprehensible the charge, the more the defendant is in need of all constitutionally guaranteed protection for his defense.
Danner v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 529, 530, 142 L.Ed.2d 439 (1998)(Scalia, J. dissenting from refusal to grant certiorari).