People v. Cintron, 75 N.Y.2d 24, 550 N.E.2d 921 (1990)
A statute allowing child witnesses to testify via closed-circuit television is constitutional on its face if it requires a showing of necessity based on clear and convincing evidence and minimizes infringement on the defendant’s confrontation rights.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which permits child witnesses in sex crime cases to testify via live, two-way closed-circuit television. The Court held that the statute is facially constitutional, provided it is construed to require a determination of vulnerability based on clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer severe mental or emotional harm if required to testify in court without the televised procedure. However, the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction because the trial court’s determination of vulnerability was based solely on its observations of the child witness, lacking the requisite evidentiary support.
Facts
Defendant was convicted of attempted rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse involving a four-year-old girl. During the trial, the court permitted the victim to testify via two-way closed-circuit television from a separate room, based on the court’s finding that the child was a vulnerable witness. Prior to this, the child was reluctant to testify and communicated primarily through head shaking. The defendant was ordered to remain in the courtroom during the child’s testimony.
Procedural History
The District Attorney proceeded to trial without a pre-trial motion. During trial, the District Attorney applied to declare the child a vulnerable witness under CPL 65.20(10). The trial court granted the application based on its observation of the child’s behavior on the stand. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Article 65 is facially unconstitutional because it allows a witness to testify outside the courtroom and, in some cases, outside the defendant’s presence, violating the defendant’s confrontation rights under the State and Federal Constitutions.
2. Whether the requirements for determining vulnerability under Article 65 were satisfied in this specific case.
Holding
1. No, Article 65 can be construed to withstand a facial constitutional challenge because it can be interpreted to afford the minimum protections required for a criminal defendant’s confrontation rights.
2. No, the showing of vulnerability was insufficient because the trial court’s determination was based solely on its own observations of the child witness without clear and convincing evidence of severe mental or emotional harm resulting from extraordinary circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Article 65 is constitutional on its face when the presumption of constitutionality is applied and CPL 65.20(10) is read to incorporate the requirements of CPL 65.10(1). Citing Coy v. Iowa, the Court acknowledged the importance of face-to-face confrontation but recognized that this right is not absolute and can yield to other compelling interests, such as protecting child witnesses. The Court interpreted Coy as permitting closed-circuit television testimony if an individualized showing of necessity is made and the infringement on the defendant’s rights is minimized. The statute’s provision for two-way simulcast, the possibility of defendant being present in the testimonial room, and the ability for cross-examination mitigate the infringement on confrontation rights.
The Court emphasized that the determination of vulnerability must be supported by “clear and convincing evidence” that the child will likely suffer “severe mental or emotional harm” as a result of “extraordinary circumstances” if required to testify in open court. The Court found that the trial court’s determination of vulnerability, based solely on its own observations of the child’s demeanor, was insufficient. The court stated, “There must be sufficient record evidence for a reviewing court to determine that the evidence was clear and convincing.” The Court stated the findings must relate to the effect that testifying in court will have on the mental or emotional well-being of the child. The court found the error was not harmless because the child presented damning testimony via closed-circuit television. Lastly, the Court held that the expert testimony was admissible.