Court Opinion

ID: 9539800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:10:29.554145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:21.430643
License: Public Domain

Herd, J.,
concurring and dissenting: I concur with all of the majority opinion except I would hold the trial court’s finding that testimony of the child-victim by closed circuit television was appropriate under the circumstances of this case was a sufficient finding of necessity to comply with Coy and Eaton. The trial court’s understanding of and respect for the defendant’s right of face-to-face confrontation caused it to require an individualized hearing on the needs of the child victim, with the State bearing the burden of showing why the protective provisions of K.S.A. 22-3434 should be implemented. I would hold that the record on appeal shows the trial court made an individualized finding of trauma to the child which outweighed the defendant’s right of confrontation. Thus, the child would constitutionally qualify to testify by closed-circuit television. I would affirm.