State v. Jackson
216 N.C. App. 238
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of first-degree sex offense with a child, crime against nature, and indecent liberties involving a four-year-old victim identified as C.G. on April 19, 2008.
- C.G. testified via closed-circuit television (CCTV) to protect her from trauma, after the court authorized remote testimony under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1225.1 following evidentiary hearings.
- The State presented testimony from C.G.'s mother and Dr. Mark Everson about C.G.'s trauma and the likelihood that testimony in the defendant's presence would impair her ability to communicate.
- The CCTV procedure allowed the jury to observe C.G.'s demeanor via video while the defendant could communicate with counsel through a private channel; C.G. testified under oath and was cross-examined.
- The trial court found the CCTV arrangement satisfied constitutional and statutory requirements, and the jury returned verdicts that the court consolidated for sentencing within the presumptive range of 384 to 470 months.
- Appellant challenges the CCTV approach as a Confrontation Clause violation and argues that aggravating factors used at sentencing were not found by the jury and thus were improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCTV testimony violated the Confrontation Clause | Jackson contends Craig does not permit CCTV post Crawford | Jackson argues Crawford undermines Craig’s CCTV approval | Constitutional; CCTV testimony upheld under Craig governing framework |
| Whether the CCTV order was supported by statutory findings | State: findings supported by expert and juvenile trauma evidence | Jackson: findings were vague and speculative | Supported; evidence linked defendant's presence to traumatization impairing communication |
| Whether sentencing based on unpleaded aggravators violated Blakely | State used aggravators; jury did not find them | Record shows judge erred; could affect sentence | No prejudicial error; sentence within presumptive range; any error did not affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (one-way CCTV preserves confrontation while protecting child witnesses)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Sixth Amendment confrontation not categorically violated by CCTV; context matters)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988) (face-to-face requirement not absolute; shielding sometimes justifiable)
- In re Stradford, 119 N.C.App. 654 (N.C. App. 1995) (pre-statute approval of remote testimony in NC handled by trial court discretion)
- State v. Wilson, 338 N.C. 244 (N.C. 1994) (remains authority on sentencing considerations and impacts of improper aggravators)