C.A.R.A. v. Jackson Cnty. Juvenile Office

• Decision Date: 11 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. SC 99231,SC 99231
• Citation: 637 S.W.3d 50
• Parties: In the Interest of: C.A.R.A., Appellant, v. JACKSON COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

637 S.W.3d 50

In the Interest of: C.A.R.A., Appellant,

v.JACKSON COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent.

No. SC 99231

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued January 11, 2022

C.A.R.A. was represented by Jeffrey C. Esparza of the public defender's office in Kansas City, (816) 889-7699.

The juvenile officer was represented by Bree A. Sturner of the juvenile office in Kansas City, (816) 435-4725.

Zel M. Fischer, Judge

The Jackson County circuit court found C.A.R.A. committed acts that would constitute first-degree statutory sodomy if committed by an adult. C.A.R.A. appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in permitting witness testimony via two-way live video because it violated C.A.R.A.’s right to confrontation under the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.

Facts and Procedural History

The Jackson County juvenile officer filed a first amended petition, alleging C.A.R.A. committed acts that would constitute first-degree statutory sodomy if committed by an adult.¹ The juvenile officer alleged C.A.R.A. had deviate sexual intercourse with S.V. by inserting C.A.R.A.’s finger into S.V.’s vagina. At the time of the alleged offense, C.A.R.A. was 12 years old and S.V. was five years old.

The adjudication hearing was continued multiple times at C.A.R.A.’s request. Prior to the adjudication hearing, C.A.R.A. filed an "Objection to Virtual Adjudication, and Request to Appear in Person" and argued C.A.R.A. had a constitutional and statutory right to face-to-face confrontation of witnesses. The juvenile officer filed a "Response to [C.A.R.A.]’s Objection to Virtual Adjudication" and argued the adjudication hearing should be held via videoconferencing technology due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In his argument, the juvenile officer cited this Court's order, In re: Operational Directives for Easing COVID-19 Restrictions on In-Person Proceedings ,² and the Sixteenth Circuit's order, In Re: Updated Court Operations upon Re-Opening of Courthouses.³

The adjudication hearing was conducted using a "hybrid" format. C.A.R.A. renewed the objection to the witnesses testifying remotely via two-way video. The circuit court overruled the objection, stated its reasoning for doing so, and described the hybrid set up as follows:

[I]n reviewing the Supreme Court [of Missouri] order and [the Sixteenth Circuit]’s order that were put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that has affected the entire world, the Supreme Court [of Missouri] has permitted the use of Webex in all types of hearings at this time in the State of Missouri.

So we have a hybrid here. Just for the record, the setup is such that I am in the courtroom with my staff. [C.A.R.A.’s attorney] is here. [C.A.R.A.] is here. [C.A.R.A.’s grandparents] are here in the courtroom on the Webex camera. The juvenile officer, as well as the witnesses that are going to be called today, are also on the Webex. Counsel for the placement providers are on the Webex. As well as [C.A.R.A.’s] mother is on the Webex and counsel for mother is also on the Webex.

I recognize that there are times where technical difficulties can be quite challenging in these types of hearings. If those challenges arise, we can always suspend the proceedings, but as of right now, we're not having any of those issues. There also is a camera pointed to the gallery or the well of the courtroom so everyone on the Webex cannot [sic] only see me, but they can also see the courtroom, including [C.A.R.A.] and [C.A.R.A.’s attorney].

And there's a large ... chalkboard-sized projection on the wall of what's going on with the Webex. So [C.A.R.A.’s attorney] and [C.A.R.A.] can see who is on the Webex call and who is talking at any given time. So everyone can see everyone basically in realtime.

There's also a way to share exhibits electronically with everyone on the Webex call, as well as any impeachable material can also be shared in that manner. And with that being said ... I will order that we are going forward at this time in this manner.

Contrary to the circuit court's statements, this Court was careful to ensure its order incorporating the operational directives would not be interpreted to permit the violation of a juvenile's constitutional or statutory rights. Whether a hearing was required to be held during a pandemic—or continued until a hearing could be held safely—is a different issue from whether the law requires a hearing to be held in person and the witnesses be required to appear face-to-face. Once a circuit court determines an adjudication hearing must be held, nothing in this Court's Operational Directives expressly permit witnesses to appear remotely.

This Court's Operational Directives, entered May 4, 2020, specifically provided that "[p]roceedings pursuant to chapters 210 and 211 pertaining to juvenile delinquency" were excluded from the provisions allowing for remote proceedings. In re: Operational Directives, supra note 2 at C(2). After listing that exception and other exceptions, this Court directed:

Courts may set in-person hearings in the above listed proceedings but it does not mandate a judge set a hearing in any individual case. The presiding judge of each circuit court and the chief judges of each appellate court are authorized to determine the manner in which the listed in-person exceptions are to be conducted. Such proceedings shall be limited to the attorneys, parties, witnesses, security officers, and other individuals necessary to the proceedings as determined by the judge presiding over the proceedings . The judge presiding over such proceedings has the discretion to excuse jurors or other individuals who cannot or should not appear as a result of risks associated with COVID-19.

Id. (emphasis added).

This Court specifically cautioned about the requirement for in-person proceedings in delinquency adjudications. Id. This Court gave circuit court presiding judges the discretion to determine the manner of in-person proceedings. Id. But this Court specifically provided that parties, attorneys, and witnesses were among the people who are physically present at in-person proceedings. See id. Nothing in this Court's directives encouraging remote proceedings for many types of hearings supports the circuit courts determination that remote proceedings were authorized in this case irrespective of the juvenile's statutory and constitutional rights. In other words, nothing in this Court's directives permitted the circuit court to deny C.A.R.A.’s request for in-person adjudication proceedings, over the objection of an accused to have the witnesses against him appear face-to-face.

The juvenile officer presented two-way video testimony from S.V., S.V.’s mother, and S.V.’s babysitter. The juvenile officer also presented evidence, over C.A.R.A.’s objection, of a video recording of S.V.’s forensic interview, a summary of the interview, and a marked-up anatomical drawing used during the interview. At the close of the juvenile officer's evidence, C.A.R.A. moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was overruled. C.A.R.A. did not present any evidence.

The circuit court sustained the allegation of first-degree statutory sodomy, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁴ After a dispositional hearing, the court ordered C.A.R.A. be committed to the custody of the Director of Family Court Services for residential placement. C.A.R.A. appealed, and the court of appeals issued an opinion but then transferred the case to this Court pursuant to Rule 83.02. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, § 10 of the Missouri Constitution.

Standard of Review

"Juvenile proceedings are reviewed in the same manner as other court-tried cases." D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cnty. Juv. Off. , 578 S.W.3d 776, 786 (Mo. banc 2019) (internal quotations omitted). "This Court will affirm a judgment in a juvenile proceeding unless it is not supported by evidence, is against the weight of evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law." Id. "[T]he constitutional protections applicable in criminal proceedings are also applicable in juvenile delinquency proceedings due to the possibility of a deprivation of liberty equivalent to criminal incarceration." In re N.D.C. , 229 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Mo. banc 2007). "Included among these rights are the rights to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses." Id.

Whether a person's rights were violated under the Confrontation Clause is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. State v. Justus , 205 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Mo. banc 2006). "Properly preserved confrontation clause violations are presumed prejudicial." Id. at 881.

Analysis

C.A.R.A. argues the two-way live video testimony of S.V., S.V.’s mother, and S.V.’s babysitter at the adjudication hearing violated C.A.R.A.’s right to confrontation, cross-examination, due process, and effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV, and the Missouri Constitution, Mo. Const. art. I, §§ 10, 18(a). C.A.R.A. properly preserved the Confrontation Clause violation for appeal by objecting to the virtual testimony before and at the adjudication hearing.

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause states "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. "[T]he Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is ... made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." Pointer v. Texas , 380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). The right to confrontation is "a fundamental right essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution." Id. at 404, 85 S.Ct. 1065 ; see also U.S. Const. amend. XIV ("No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.").

The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the use of two-way live video feed in a criminal or juvenile adjudication proceeding and...