In the Interest of E. T., a Child
342 Ga. App. 710
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile (E.T.), age 15 at the offense, was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and criminal attempt to commit armed robbery based largely on an adult victim’s identification.
- The victim suffered catastrophic injuries and was hospitalized in Miami awaiting a multi-organ transplant; he testified remotely from the hospital via two-way video (WebEx).
- The State sought video testimony citing the victim’s infirmity, convenience, expense, and alleged safety concerns; defense objected to live video testimony but did not object to a deposition.
- The juvenile court allowed two-way video testimony under URJC Rule 2.7-2 (good cause) without holding an evidentiary hearing or making case-specific findings on necessity.
- The court merged aggravated battery into aggravated assault, later amended the adjudication language sua sponte, and dispositional custody was imposed; E.T. appealed, arguing (inter alia) confrontation and rule violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (E.T.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two-way video testimony violated URJC Rule 2.7-2 | Rule forbids conducting formal adjudicatory hearings by video and defense objected to witness testifying remotely | Rule 2.7-2(C) permits a witness to testify via video on a showing of good cause | Court: Rule permits witness testimony by video upon good cause; no rule violation found |
| Whether two-way video testimony violated Sixth Amendment confrontation clause | Remote testimony denied face-to-face confrontation; no case-specific necessity finding made | Video preserved cross-examination, demeanor observation, and met technical standards; good cause existed due to victim’s infirmity and safety concerns | Court: Sixth Amendment violated—trial court failed to apply Craig; remand for new adjudicatory hearing |
| Whether Rule’s technical standards/recording satisfied reliability prong of Craig | Even if technical standards met, reliability alone cannot replace necessity requirement | Technical standards preserve essence of confrontation and ensure reliability | Court: Technical standards address reliability but do not substitute for the required case-specific necessity showing under Craig |
| Whether alternate procedures (e.g., in-person deposition) were available/required | Court should have pursued deposition or continuance to allow face-to-face confrontation | State argued deposition impractical/unsafe and video was less burdensome and costly | Court: Alternate procedures (video-taped deposition with defendant present) were available; trial court should have considered them; reliance on convenience/cost insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (establishes two-part test: case-specific necessity to further important public policy and assurances of reliability for remote testimony)
- United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) (applies Craig to two-way video testimony; requires case-specific necessity and evidentiary hearing)
- Brumley v. Wingard, 269 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2001) (administrative convenience and cost do not justify abridgement of confrontation rights)
- United States v. Jacobs, 97 F.3d 275 (8th Cir. 1996) (court must consider illness severity, duration, and other factors before permitting remote cross-examination)
- Horn v. Quarterman, 508 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2007) (permitted remote testimony only after the trial court considered medical evidence and found necessity)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause principles regarding testimonial hearsay; discussed in context though Craig remains controlling on remote testimony)