In re Interest of I.J.

• Decision Date: 17 May 2022
• Docket Number: ED 109406
• Citation: 644 S.W.3d 613
• Parties: In the INTEREST OF I.J.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

644 S.W.3d 613

In the INTEREST OF I.J.,

No. ED 109406

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: May 17, 2022

Samuel E. Buffaloe, 1000 W. Nifong Bldg. 7 Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Appellant.

James A. Michaels, Jr., Alexandria A. Shah, 920 N. Vandeventer Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, For Respondent.

OPINION

Thomas C. Clark II, Judge

I.J. (Appellant) appeals the juvenile court's judgment finding he committed robbery first degree and while acting with another in violation of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.¹ Appellant claims (1) the court violated his right to confrontation by prohibiting him from attending his adjudication hearing in person but allowing him to participate remotely by videoconference due to COVID-19 restrictions and (2) the photographic lineup used to identify Appellant was impermissibly suggestive. Considering the recent Missouri Supreme Court opinions, J.A.T. v. Jackson County Juvenile Office, 637 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2022) and C.A.R.A. v. Jackson County Juvenile Office, 637 S.W.3d 50 (Mo. banc 2022), we are compelled to reverse the juvenile court's right to confrontation determination and remand for further proceedings. Since we reverse on the confrontation issue, we do not address Appellant's second point challenging the photographic lineup.

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant is a juvenile residing with his mother in the City of St. Louis. On January 10, 2020, the Juvenile Officer charged Appellant with one count of robbery first degree and one count of resisting arrest in cause 2022-JU00023. More specifically, the Juvenile Officer alleged that Appellant, while acting with another, forcibly stole a wallet, purse, $600.00 in cash and a credit card belonging to the complaining witness and Appellant, or another participant in the crime, displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon on June 20, 2019. When the police attempted to apprehend Appellant later that same day, he allegedly resisted their efforts to detain him by fleeing from the officers.² Additionally, the Juvenile Officer alleged Appellant violated the court's pre-trial release order when failing to recharge his GPS-monitoring device, choosing to associate with Emmanuel Bennett and leaving his mother's home past curfew without permission.

At the November 30, 2020 adjudication hearing, Appellant's attorney objected to the court prohibiting Appellant from attending the hearing in person despite allowing him to participate remotely through Webex. The court denied the motion, finding Appellant's participation by videoconference was a necessary, precautionary measure considering the risks associated with COVID-19, was consistent with Missouri Supreme Court guidance and did not infringe upon his constitutional rights.³ Appellant did not testify at the adjudication hearing. On December 7, 2020, the court found the Juvenile Officer proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed robbery first degree, while acting with another, in violation of §§ 570.023 and 562.041 respectively and he violated the conditions of his pre-trial release. The court found Appellant not guilty of resisting arrest.

He appealed, arguing the juvenile court's decision violated his right to confrontation. On November 18, 2021, this court stayed the appeal pending the Missouri Supreme Court's decisions in J.A.T. and C.A.R.A. , which specifically addressed COVID-19's impact on the Confrontation Clause, U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV. Both cases were reversed and remanded on January 11, 2022. The stay involving this matter was lifted and both parties filed supplemental briefs indicating the judgment must be reversed based on the Missouri Supreme Court rulings.

Standard of Review

We review juvenile proceedings in the same manner as other court-tried cases. J.A.T. , 637 S.W.3d at 6. This is because "the possibility of a deprivation of liberty [is] equivalent to criminal incarceration." Id. at 7. We will affirm the juvenile court's judgment unless it is not supported by the evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. at 6. Alleged constitutional rights violations are questions of law and are reviewed de novo. Id. When properly preserved, constitutional violations are presumed prejudicial. Id. at 7.

Discussion

Appellant claims his participation in the adjudication hearing via two-way, live videoconference violated his constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause. Considering Appellant objected to a virtual adjudication during the hearing, he properly preserved his claim for appeal. See C.A.R.A. , 637 S.W.3d at 54.

In C.A.R.A. , the Missouri Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional implications of witness testimony presented via two-way, live videoconference in a juvenile delinquency case and held that COVID-19 concerns are insufficient to override an individual's constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses "face-to-face" during an adjudication hearing. In J.A.T. , the Court similarly held that generalized concerns about COVID-19 do not justify denying an individual's constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause to physically attend the juvenile adjudication hearing.

"One of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused's right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of trial." J.A.T. , 637 S.W.3d at 7 (citing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) ). The right to confrontation is also applicable in juvenile delinquency proceedings due to the potential deprivation of liberty or the equivalent to criminal incarceration. Id. Although this right is not absolute, it is not easily marginalized. C.A.R.A. , 637 S.W.3d at 56.⁴

J.A.T. dictates that the right to confrontation is violated if the juvenile is denied physical, in-person attendance at the adjudication hearing due to general circumstances concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. J.A.T. , 637 S.W.3d at 10. In J.A.T. , the juvenile court cited the detention facility's policy against transporting juveniles to and from court to limit possible exposure to COVID-19 but did not attribute any fault to the juvenile when excluding him from the courtroom. Id. at 9-10.⁵ The Missouri Supreme Court held that the court's reasoning could not overcome the constitutional guarantees allowing him to physically attend his adjudication hearing. Id. at 10.

The factual circumstances and issues in this matter are mostly identical to J.A.T. and require us to reverse the juvenile court. The juvenile court only allowed Appellant to attend his adjudication proceeding virtually rather than in person. When doing so, the juvenile court attributed his exclusion from court as a consequence of generalized concerns regarding COVID-19. The juvenile court reasoned that the precautionary measures were warranted due to the circumstances created by the pandemic, while emphasizing the need to protect juveniles in detention. While genuinely expressed, the juvenile court's reasoning conflicts with higher authority. The Missouri Supreme Court held that these general concerns...