State v. Scott
![handle is hein.journals/jjuvl15 and id is 411 raw text is: DIGEST OF RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
As long as the procedure utilized to elicit videotaped testimony of a
victim of alleged sexual assault does not deprive the defendant of his
right to confrontation, namely, the right to cross-examination, obser-
vation of alleged victim's demeanor by the fact-finder, physical pres-
ence, and oath, admission of the videotape will be upheld: State v.
Scoff.
I. SUMMARY OF ThE CASE
In State v. Scott,' a social worker conducted a videotaped inter-
view of the child victim of sexual abuse. The defendant, Scott, was
allowed to attend the videotaped interview; however, he chose not to
be present.2 During the interview, the child testified that defendant
had sexually assaulted her.3 At trial, the videotape was shown to the
jury.4 Scott appealed the conviction alleging his right to confrontation
was denied by allowing the videotaped testimony, in lieu of live testi-
mony, to be received into evidence.5
II. DEFENDANT's ARGUMENT
Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to confront wit-
nesses against them under both the United States and Montana Con-
stitutions.6 Montana statutes, however, provide for the videotaping,
at the request of the victim and with the concurrence of the prosecu-
tor, of the alleged victim's testimony for presentation at trial for ac-
tions involving sexual assault.7 Furthermore, the statute states that
the defendant shall be allowed to attend the videotape proceedings.8
1. 850 P.2d 286 (Mont. 1993).
2. Scott, 850 P.2d at 291.
3. Id. at 288.
4. Id. at 290.
5. Id.
6. Scott, 850 P.2d at 290 (citing U.S. CONST. amend VI; MoNr. CONST. art. II, s 24,
which provide in pertinent part: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.)
7. Id. (citing MONT.CoDE ANN. § 46-15-401 (1989)(repealed and recodified as
MONT.CODE ANN. § 46-16-216) which provides:
the testimony of the victim, at the request of such victim and with the concurrence
of the prosecuting attorney, may be recorded by means of videotape for presenta-
tion at trial. The testimony so recorded may be presented at trial and shall be
received into evidence. The victim need not be physically present in the court-
room when the videotape is admitted into evidence.
Id.
8. Scott, 850 P.2d at 290 (1989)(citing MoNT. CODES ANN. § 46-15-402 (repealed and
recodified as MoNT. CODES ANN. § 46-16-216)). Section 46-15-402 provides:
(2) The district court judge, the prosecuting attorney, the victim, the defendant,
the defendant's attorney, and such persons as are deemed necessary by the court
to make the recordings authorized under this part shall be allowed to attend the
videotape proceedings.
1994]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jjuvl15&div=48&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
State v. Scott
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most