Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteappealtrialtestimony
defendantstatuteappealtrialtestimonyfelonyappellantjury trial

Related Cases

Lanning v. Pilcher, 16 So.3d 294, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1727
View Case »
Robbins v. Yusem, 559 So.2d 1185, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D554
View Case »
Bachrach v. Nelson, 349 Ill. 579, 182 N.E. 909
View Case »
Fire Ass’n of Philadelphia v. People of New York, 119 U.S. 110, 7 S.Ct. 108, 30 L.Ed. 342
View Case »
Wellmark, Inc. v. Polk County Bd. of Review, 875 N.W.2d 667
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Brady v. State, 575 N.E.2d 981, 60 USLW 2063

Facts

Michael Brady, the natural father of T.B., was accused of fondling and touching his daughter with the intent to arouse his sexual desires. The alleged incidents occurred during a visitation period in April 1986. After T.B. exhibited signs of distress, a physical examination revealed injuries consistent with sexual abuse. T.B. made several statements to investigators identifying Brady as her abuser. The trial court allowed T.B.'s testimony to be videotaped for trial, where she could not see or hear Brady, leading to the appeal.

Following a jury trial, appellant Michael Brady was convicted of child molesting, a Class C felony, I.C. 35–42–4–3(b), and received a sentence of seven years. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction and corresponding sentence. Brady v. State (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 59 (Hoffman, J., dissenting). Appellant now brings this petition to transfer. We now grant transfer and reverse. The points raised in appellant's petition include the contention that I.C. 35–37–4–8, which authorizes the use of videotaped testimony of child witnesses at trial is unconstitutional. Appellant also asserts that the videotaped testimony should not have been admitted into evidence because appellant's right to cross-examine the witness was compromised.

Issue

Did the admission of T.B.'s videotaped testimony, where she could not see or hear the defendant, violate Brady's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him?

Did the admission of T.B.'s videotaped testimony, where she could not see or hear the defendant, violate Brady's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him?

Rule

The right to confront witnesses is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides that the accused shall have the right to meet witnesses face to face.

The right to confront witnesses is a fundamental right ensured by the Sixth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, wherein it provides that '[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him….' Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). Article I, § 13 of the Indiana Constitution provides that '[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right … to meet the witnesses face to face….'

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory provisions allowing for videotaped testimony and determined that they infringed upon the defendant's right to confront witnesses face to face. The court noted that while the statute aimed to protect child witnesses from trauma, it did not adequately ensure that the defendant could confront the witness in a meaningful way. The court emphasized that the right to cross-examine and observe the witness's demeanor is a fundamental aspect of the confrontation right.

The court analyzed the statutory provisions allowing for videotaped testimony and determined that they infringed upon the defendant's right to confront witnesses face to face. The court noted that while the statute aimed to protect child witnesses from trauma, it did not adequately ensure that the defendant could confront the witness in a meaningful way. The court emphasized that the right to cross-examine and observe the witness's demeanor is a fundamental aspect of the confrontation right.

Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed Brady's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the admission of the videotaped testimony was not harmless error due to its incriminating nature.

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed Brady's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the admission of the videotaped testimony was not harmless error due to its incriminating nature.

Who won?

Michael Brady prevailed in the appeal because the court found that his constitutional rights were violated by the admission of the videotaped testimony.

Michael Brady prevailed in the appeal because the court found that his constitutional rights were violated by the admission of the videotaped testimony.

You must be