7 results for 'cat:"Confrontation" AND cat:"Sex Offender" AND cat:"Child Victims"'.
Per curiam, the New Jersey Supreme Court finds that the appellate division properly overturned an order limiting testimony from the alleged eight-year-old victim in defendant's trial for sexually molesting the child during music instruction. The child's video statement was testimonial, and defendant's right to confront witnesses did not depend on the victim's ability to recall details six years later. Affirmed.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: A-13-23, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, child Victims
J. Moeller finds that the trial court improperly admitted video evidence of recorded interviews with defendant's alleged victim by a social worker in his trial for lewd conduct and disseminating harmful material to a minor. The purpose of the social worker's questioning was not only diagnostic, as she sought details about the perpetrator to build a criminal case and was partially guided by an investigator monitoring the interview over a closed-circuit monitor. The forensic component of the interview transformed it from medical to investigatory, and the video evidence into testimony subject to confrontation. Vacated.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Moeller, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 50523, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, child Victims
J. Markle finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, incest and child molestation. The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for a new trial and did not commit any error by allowing the 15-year-old victim to testify outside defendant's physical presence. The victim was allowed to testify from another courtroom via one-way closed circuit television. The decision was necessary to protect the victim's welfare and was supported by the evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Markle, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: A23A1115, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, child Victims
J. Gwin finds the lack of physical injury or trauma to the 5-year-old victim does not render defendant's gross sexual imposition convictions against the weight of the evidence. Video evidence of the victim stating defendant "tickled" her in the vaginal area while the two were alone in his camper was sufficient for the jury to convict him. Meanwhile, the admission of the video evidence without the victim's live testimony at trial did not violate defendant's confrontation rights because the interview was conducted as part of an investigation by a sexual assault nurse and was, therefore, relevant to her medical treatment. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gwin, Filed On: June 27, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2128, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, child Victims
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Boatright finds that the trial court properly admitted hearsay statements that a child made about alleged unlawful sexual behavior because the child was under 18 when she made them. Also, the appeals court correctly determined that for the crime of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust, the child hearsay statute applies to any victim under the age of 18. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Boatright, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 21SC340, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, child Victims
J. Boatright finds that the trial court properly admitted video of a forensic interview of a victim under the child hearsay statute. For the crime of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust, the child hearsay statute applies to any victim under the age of 18. But the trial court must revisit the imposition of concurrent sentences since the offenses did not involve the same supporting evidence. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Boatright, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 21SC325, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, child Victims