Coronado v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1248
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Three-year-old R.D. (the victim) is related to Coronado as a great‑uncle; Coronado’s family lived with the great‑grandmother who cared for R.D.
- The State sought to admit R.D.’s two forensic interviews as evidence under Article 38.071, § 2, using written interrogatories asked by a forensic interviewer rather than live cross‑examination.
- The trial court found R.D. unavailable and allowed the interrogatories procedure; defense objected.
- Two videotaped interviews were admitted; defense preserved Crawford confrontation objections; Coronado was convicted of touching and penetrating R.D. and sentenced to life in prison on both counts.
- The court of appeals affirmed the admissibility of written interrogatories and videotapes; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding § 2 violates the Confrontation Clause consistent with Crawford and Craig, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- Concurring and dissenting opinions discuss nuances, but the controlling holding is that Article 38.071, § 2’s written‑interrogatories procedure cannot constitutionally substitute for live cross‑examination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2’s written interrogatories satisfy Crawford’s requirement for cross‑examination. | State argues the procedure balances child protection with confrontation by ensuring cross‑examination and reliability. | Coronado contends it fails to provide meaningful, adversarial cross‑examination and undermines the Confrontation Clause. | No; §2 is unconstitutional as applied. |
| Whether R.D.’s videotaped interviews are testimonial and admissible absent live cross‑examination. | State argues the interviews are admissible given unavailability and necessity to protect the child. | Coronado argues testimonial statements require prior cross‑examination and are inadmissible otherwise. | Testimony is testimonial; inadmissible absent prior cross‑examination or the child testifying. |
| What standard governs unavailability and the adequacy of the alternative cross‑examination method under Crawford/Craig. | State relies on Craig’s framework allowing substitute procedures with safeguards. | Coronado asserts substitute methods, like interrogatories, fail rigorous testing and observation. | Craig’s framework requires substantial equivalence to cross‑examination; the §2 method does not meet it. |
| Does lack of live cross‑examination (lapse of time, non‑live questioning) defeat Confrontation rights under Crawford. | State asserts deterrence of trauma and still provides reliable testing via interviewer's questions and oath. | Coronado argues that non‑live questioning undermines adversarial testing and defendant’s rights. | Not acceptable; non‑live, ex parte questioning fails the confrontation guarantee. |
| Does the presence of an oath and ability to observe demeanor cure Crawford concerns? | State notes oath in the second interview and demeanor observation; attempts to cure reliability. | Coronado contends these safeguards are insufficient with written interrogatories. | Oath and demeanor observation are not enough when cross‑examination is not adversarial and in person. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (face‑to‑face confrontation is generally required; exceptions limited)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (one‑way TV allowed with safeguards where necessary for child witnesses)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require unavailability and prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. non‑testimonial statements by purpose of interrogation)
- California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) (confrontation testing and cross‑examination as safeguards to reliability)
- Crawford line notes Bullcoming v. New Mexico, U.S. , 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (requires adversarial cross‑examination for testimonial evidence in lab contexts)