State of Indiana v. Delbert McKinney
82 N.E.3d 290
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Delbert McKinney was charged with multiple counts of child molesting involving victim K.N., born 2008.
- State moved to exclude McKinney from the victim’s pretrial deposition and to have K.N. testify at trial via two-way closed-circuit television (CCTV).
- Experts (a psychiatrist and a psychiatric social worker) testified K.N. (developmentally delayed, PTSD, other disorders) would likely suffer serious emotional harm and have reduced ability to communicate if she testified in McKinney’s physical presence; both said CCTV would be less traumatic.
- Trial court denied both motions, allowing McKinney to attend the deposition with safeguards (sit ~10 feet away; officer present) and ruling CCTV unnecessary because experts allegedly showed little difference in stress between in-person and TV viewing.
- State obtained interlocutory appeal; Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion on both rulings given the expert evidence and statutory framework protecting young sex-crime victims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by allowing defendant at victim’s deposition | Presence would cause serious emotional harm to an eight-year-old and deposition may be taken without defendant | Defendant has no entitlement to be excluded from depositions and court may permit presence with safeguards | Reversed — exclusion should have been granted; safeguards were inadequate given expert testimony |
| Whether court abused discretion by denying CCTV testimony at trial | Statute permits CCTV when testimony in defendant’s presence would cause serious emotional harm and impede communication; experts support CCTV | CCTV may impair defendant’s confrontation right; court found little difference in stress between in-person and TV | Reversed — trial court abused discretion; statutory criteria satisfied by uncontradicted expert evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- Brady v. State, 575 N.E.2d 981 (Ind. 1991) (purpose of protected-person statute is to reduce trauma to child witnesses via closed-circuit testimony without defeating face-to-face confrontation)
- Jones v. State, 445 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1983) (upholding deposition of small child without defendant present in a child-molesting case)
- Bowen v. State, 334 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. 1975) (refusing to extend face-to-face requirement to pretrial depositions where deposition itself does not impose direct loss of liberty)