view of F.R. while she testified. (Craig, 497 U.S. at pp. 850, 857; supra, Gonzales, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1268; 29 Cal.4th at p. 1783.) supra, Sharp, supra, Second, the record supports the trial court’s implied findings that the use of the computer monitor was necessary to further important state interests: (1) protecting two F.R. from suffering serious emotional trauma while testifying; and (2) obtaining F.R.’s and accurate” testimony. (Craig, 497 U.S. at pp. 850-852; supra, Gonzales, “complete 54 Cal.4th at pp. 1267-1268; 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1783.) The record supra, Sharp, supra, shows F.R. was not merely crying or when she first stepped to the “uncomfortable” witness stand, but was so emotionally upset that she was unable to proceed and effectively in the proceedings.” (Sharp, at p. 1783.) The record also supra, “participate shows that raising the computer to block F.R’s view of defendant was necessary to allow F.R. to proceed and testify against defendant. Though the trial court was not expressly asked to make a finding” “case-specific that repositioning the computer monitor to block F.R.’s view of defendant was necessary to further an important state interest (Craig, 497 U.S. at pp. 855-856), the court supra, effectively made this finding and substantial evidence supports it. In overruling defendant’s confrontation objection, the court found that raising the monitor was given that F.R. was emotionally upset and to proceed” when she “appropriate” “unable first stepped to the witness stand. The court also indicated that the prospect of testifying while facing defendant affected” F.R. and was the cause of her emotional trauma “clearly
view of F.R. while she testified. (Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at pp. 850, 857; Gonzales, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1268; Sharp, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1783.) Second, the record supports the trial court’s implied findings that the use of the computer monitor was necessary to further two important state interests: (1) protecting F.R. from suffering serious emotional trauma while testifying; and (2) obtaining F.R.’s “complete and accurate” testimony. (Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at pp. 850-852; Gonzales, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 1267-1268; Sharp, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1783.) The record shows F.R. was not merely crying or “uncomfortable” when she first stepped to the witness stand, but was so emotionally upset that she was unable to proceed and “participate effectively in the proceedings.” (Sharp, supra, at p. 1783.) The record also shows that raising the computer to block F.R’s view of defendant was necessary to allow F.R. to proceed and testify against defendant. Though the trial court was not expressly asked to make a “case-specific finding” that repositioning the computer monitor to block F.R.’s view of defendant was necessary to further an important state interest (Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at pp. 855-856), the court effectively made this finding and substantial evidence supports it. In overruling defendant’s confrontation objection, the court found that raising the monitor was “appropriate” given that F.R. was emotionally upset and “unable to proceed” when she first stepped to the witness stand. The court also indicated that the prospect of testifying while facing defendant “clearly affected” F.R. and was the cause of her emotional trauma
E064206.DOCX