trauma” and (2) obtaining the child’s and accurate” testimony. (Id. at p. 1783, “complete citing 497 U.S. at pp. 845-846.) Craig, supra, In the more recent California Supreme Court case of (2012) 54 People v. Gonzales Cal.4th 1234 (Gonzales), the state high court followed and found no confrontation Sharp violation in circumstances substantially similar to those in (Gonzales, at Sharp. supra, pp. 1267-1268.) The defendant in was tried and convicted of the Gonzales murder of his four-year-old niece, Genny. (Id. at p. 1242.) Genny lived with the defendant, his wife, and their six children, including their oldest son, Ivan, Jr. (Id. at pp. 1242-1243.) Ivan, Jr. was eight years old when he testified at his father’s preliminary hearing. Ivan, Jr. testified to events he witnessed on the night of Genny’s murder, that he had previously seen his mother and the defendant severely abuse Genny, and that he feared his father. (Id. at pp. 1247-1248.) Ivan, Jr.’s preliminary hearing testimony was admitted at the defendant’s trial in lieu of his live testimony. (Id. at pp. 1247, 1261; Evid. Code, § 1291.) At the preliminary hearing, the court granted the prosecutor’s motion to allow Ivan, Jr. and other witnesses” to be seated from the defendant. away” “juvenile “facing (Gonzales, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1265, italics added.) The podium for counsel was supra, placed so that the lawyers had eye contact with the witnesses, and the witnesses were to look around the courtroom and make eye contact” with the defendant, they “free “if desired.” (Ibid.) On appeal, the defendant claimed the admission of Ivan, Jr.’s preliminary hearing testimony at trial violated his confrontation rights because the
trauma” and (2) obtaining the child’s “complete and accurate” testimony. (Id. at p. 1783, citing Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at pp. 845-846.) In the more recent California Supreme Court case of People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234 (Gonzales), the state high court followed Sharp and found no confrontation violation in circumstances substantially similar to those in Sharp. (Gonzales, supra, at pp. 1267-1268.) The defendant in Gonzales was tried and convicted of the of his four-year-old niece, Genny. (Id. at p. 1242.) Genny lived with the defendant, his wife, and their six children, including their oldest son, Ivan, Jr. (Id. at pp. 1242-1243.) Ivan, Jr. was eight years old when he testified at his father’s preliminary hearing. Ivan, Jr. testified to events he witnessed on the night of Genny’s murder, that he had previously seen his mother and the defendant severely abuse Genny, and that he feared his father. (Id. at pp. 1247-1248.) Ivan, Jr.’s preliminary hearing testimony was admitted at the defendant’s trial in lieu of his live testimony. (Id. at pp. 1247, 1261; Evid. Code, § 1291.) At the preliminary hearing, the court granted the prosecutor’s motion to allow Ivan, Jr. and other “juvenile witnesses” to be seated “facing away” from the defendant. (Gonzales, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1265, italics added.) The podium for counsel was placed so that the lawyers had eye contact with the witnesses, and the witnesses were “free to look around the courtroom and make eye contact” with the defendant, “if they desired.” (Ibid.) On appeal, the defendant claimed the admission of Ivan, Jr.’s preliminary hearing testimony at trial violated his confrontation rights because the murder
E064206.DOCX