Court Opinion

ID: 9777806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:24:44.553662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:01.714769
License: Public Domain

dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would hold that TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 38.071, sec. 2 (Vernon Supp.1986), is constitutional.
I differ with the majority in their holding that it is not constitutional and with their reasoning in approving the philosophy of Long v. State, 694 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, no pet.), and instead would follow Jolly v. State, 681 S.W.2d 689 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, pet. granted).
The majority feels that section 2 does not adequately provide an appellant with a right of confrontation and cross-examination because, in their view, appellant is compelled “to forego either the right to confrontation or his right to remain passive.” Long, 694 S.W.2d at 192. I do not see where the election is any different if the child is speaking to a videotape or testifying live from the stand. Either way a defendant would be put to the choice of remaining passive or exercising his right of cross-examination. Either way, a defendant has the opportunity of seeing his accuser testify against him. Either way, under section 2, the defendant has the option of *754cross-examination. An element in a live confrontation as opposed to a video confrontation is . that in the video confrontation, the accused does not have the opportunity to intimidate the child with his presence as a father or adult figure. If the intimidation feature of confrontation is a constitutional right of the defendant, then the theory I am advancing in this dissent is in error and the majority opinion is correct. It was obviously the intention of the legislature in providing for a video presentation such as this that the intimidation of a powerful father figure as opposed to a timid, yielding child figure be eliminated. The legislature recognized a very pressing problem of our times and has sought to correct it in providing for the video deposition such as was taken in this case. I recognize the very serious problem of maintaining the right of confrontation and cross-examination in our system, but I also recognize that in these times of changing society and its attendant problems that the use of new technologies is appropriate in dealing with those problems. I believe that the philosophy stated in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) is applicable to this case and I would hold that this case should be affirmed.
BURDOCK, J., concurs.