20 results for 'cat:"Confrontation" AND cat:"Sex Offender"'.
J. Sandefur finds that the trial court improperly allowed a state expert to remotely testify over video about the typical behavior of minor sexual abuse victims. No case-specific finding regarding Covid-19, the weather or other concern about the expert's availability to testify in person supported the exception to defendant's confrontation right. Instead, the state wanted remote testimony for witness convenience and for trial tactics. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Sandefur, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: DA 21-0086, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, Experts
J. Tucher finds that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony from an alleged victim's mother in defendant's sexual abuse trial. The statements victim made to her mother did not meet the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule because they were made about events that occurred five years earlier, and came after the victim had reflected on years of molestation and before a final sexual encounter. The convictions for sex offenses over the six years before the victim made a report stand, but the mother's hearsay testimony was the only evidence supporting a count for a lewd act on a child under the age of 14. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: A165646, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender
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. Luthy finds that counsel should have asked for a unanimity jury instruction on an aggravated sexual abuse of a child charge. But defendant was not prejudiced since the activity supporting the charge occurred during the same interaction that resulted in his rape of child conviction. And admission of hearsay testimony was likely error but did not cause prejudice since it was the same as other properly admitted evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Luthy, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 20210381-CA, Categories: confrontation, Ineffective Assistance, sex Offender
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
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. Keough finds the victim's failure to remember the exact date on which she was raped by defendant does not render his conviction against the weight of the evidence. She testified it was at or near the time of her mother's death, which proved she was under the age of 13 at the time of the assault. Furthermore, defendant's confrontation rights were not violated when the trial court refused to allow him to cross-examine the victim about previous rape allegations made against other individuals. Although she gave conflicting testimony, it was likely that some sexual activity occurred and, therefore, Ohio's rape-shield law applied and excluded any cross-examination. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Keough, Filed On: January 11, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-69, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender
J. McKinnon finds that the trial court properly admitted hearsay statements that defendant's stepdaughter made to a doctor about the cause of her injuries, as they were made to a medical provider for the primary purpose of medical care and were nontestimonial. However, the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements she made to a sexual assault nurse examiner that were testimonial because they were made as part of a police investigation, but the error was harmless because the statements were identical to other admissible evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McKinnon, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: DA 21-0587, Categories: confrontation, Drug Offender, sex Offender
J. Gundrum finds the circuit court improperly granted defendant's motion for a new trial in a case in which he was convicted in 2001 of four counts related to his alleged sexual assault of his seven-year-old step-daughter on two occasions in 1998 and 1999. Defendant's confrontation clause challenge to the admission of out-of-court statements from his step-daughter and her younger brother and his claim that he was denied a fair trial by being unable to cross-examine a witness for the state regarding immunity he was granted for his testimony both fail, as the statements admitted at trial were either non-testimonial or ultimately harmless and, while the state and defendant agree the circuit court erred by keeping defendant from cross-examining the physician witness for the state, the error was also harmless in that it would not have meaningfully affected the outcome of the trial. On remand the circuit court is directed to reinstate defendant's 2013 amended judgment of conviction. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Judge: Gundrum, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 2021AP001590-CR, Categories: confrontation, sex Offender, Witnesses
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. Streeter finds that defendant's confrontation right was violated by the trial court's exclusion of all evidence indicating that an alleged victim sought a U-visa for her mother, which would grant legal status in exchange for helping investigators. The error was not harmless because the alleged victim's testimony was crucial to the prosecution, it was not cumulative and it was neither contradicted or corroborated by other evidence. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: A164897, Categories: confrontation, Immigration, sex Offender
J. Orme finds that counsel in defendant's sexual assault trial was not deficient for deciding not to seek a directed verdict in the basis on inherent improbability simply because of inconsistency in victim's statements about what she wore during the assault. Testimony a nurse made about the victim's statements during a post-assault examination were properly admitted since they were related to a medical diagnosis or treatment. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Orme, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 20220059-CA, Categories: confrontation, Ineffective Assistance, sex Offender
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
J. van Cleef finds that while sufficient evidence supports the trial court's decision to adjudicate defendant's guilt on counts of sexual assault of a child following the revocation of his community supervision for a failed drug test, he was "harmed by a denial of his right to confront the key witness against him." The case is remanded for a new adjudication hearing. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: van Cleef, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: 06-22-00170-CR, Categories: confrontation, Probation, sex Offender
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
J. Mikva finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of criminal sexual assault and kidnapping, and sentenced him to 22 years in prison after allowing his victim, an adult with intellectual disabilities, to testify via closed-circuit TV. This expansion of special procedures originally extended to child victims is not unconstitutional because the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the psychological welfare of vulnerable citizens. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Mikva, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 200966, Categories: confrontation, Constitution, sex Offender
J. Durrant finds that the district court was within its discretion to admit other-acts evidence when trying defendant for the sexual assaults of six women. The Supreme Court abandons the doctrine of chances precedent, yet the other-acts evidence was properly admitted under other rules of evidence. Also, out-of-court statements were properly admitted under exemptions to the prohibition on hearsay. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Supreme Court, Judge: Durrant, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 20190336, Categories: confrontation, Evidence, sex Offender