# Buckley v. State

> Court of Appeals of Texas · August 23, 1988 · 758 S.W.2d 339

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652716

## Case

- **Full name:** Donald Whitfield BUCKLEY, Sr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** August 23, 1988
- **Citations:** 758 S.W.2d 339; 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1562; 1988 WL 88769
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Grant
- **Judges:** Cornelius, Grant, Bleil
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652716

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- establishing eleven “[i]ndicia of reliability” that the trial court 4 “may look to”

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GRANT, Justice.
Since the writing of the initial opinion in this cause, the United States Supreme Court has again addressed the right of confrontation in Coy v. Iowa, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 2798 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). This case dealt with a statute that allowed two thirteen-year old girls, who were complaining witnesses in a sexual assault case, to testify at trial from behind a screen. The Court notes in the majority opinion that prior opinions involving the Confrontation Clause have involved either the admissibility of out-of-court statements 1 or restrictions on the scope of cross-examination. The Court in the Coy case clearly stated that the “Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before tfie trier of fact.” (Emphasis added.) What the Supreme Court condemned in Coy , both in the majority and the concurring opinions, 2 is a “generalized legislative finding of necessity,” rather than “a case-specific finding of necessity.”
The present case differs in two ways from the Coy case: First, it does not involve depriving the defendant of a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact. Second, it does not involve an exception applying to an entire class, but rather allows a case-by-case *350 court determination. 3 We do not find that the Coy decision alters in any way our original opinion in this case. We therefore overrule the Motion for Rehearing.
. Here the Supreme Court cited Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), and Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970). The Ohio case held that the testimony of an unavailable witness given at a preliminary hearing was admissible without violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The Dutton case held that a hearsay statement which had been made by an alleged conspirator could be admitted into evidence without violating the defendant’s right of confrontation.
. Justices O'Connor and White joined in a concurring opinion.
. The Coy case talks in terms of individualized finding as to whether particular witnesses need special protection; whereas, the present case involves a statute which allows a case-by-case determination as to the reliability of the out-of-court statements.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652716. Public record. Not legal advice.