State of Tennessee v. Barry D. McCoy, 459 S.W.3d 1

McCoy indicted on seven counts of rape of a child; trial court refused to admit video-recorded interview under 24-7-123; State sought interlocutory appeal challenging statute’s constitutionality and admissibility; on remand, trial court found statutory compliance and potential admissibility but the appellate court previously denied interlocutory review; Supreme Court granted discretionary review to resolve separation-of-powers, hearsay, and Confrontation Clause issues; Court ultimately held 24-7-123 constitutional and admissible as a legislative exception if conditions are met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Separation of powers validity of 24-7-123	State argues statute compatible with judiciary’s powers	McCoy contends statute encroaches on judicial function	Statute does not violate separation of powers
Hearsay admissibility under 24-7-123	State contends statute creates valid hearsay exception	McCoy argues it remains improper hearsay	Video qualifies as hearsay but admissible under 24-7-123 as an exception
Confrontation Clause compliance for video statement	State contends provision can be used if cross-examined	McCoy asserts Confrontation Clause protections prohibit the recording	Admissible only if the child authenticates and appears for cross-examination; otherwise inadmissible; statute balanced with confrontation rights

Pilkey v. State, 776 S.W.2d 943 (Tenn. 1989) (Confrontation Clause pre-Crawford considerations in pre-Crawford statutes)
Deuter v. State, 839 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn. 1992) (State constitutional confrontation rights analysis; pre-Crawford framework)
Cannon v. State, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008) (Confrontation Clause analysis applied to testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements)
Lewis v. State, 235 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. 2007) (Confrontation Clause articulation; state and federal standard alignment)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Testimonial vs. non-testimonial determinations; primary purpose analysis)