holding that a silent video is not a statement for hearsay purposes and, thus, that its admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause
How later courts described this case
- holding that a silent video is not a statement for hearsay purposes and, thus, that its admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VANDE WÁLLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 24] I agree with and have signed the opinion authored for the Court by Justice Sandstrom. The opinion painstakingly applies the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation and the hearsay rule to the facts of the matter before us and concludes there was no violation of that right. Under the circumstances of this case I agree with that conclusion. I write separately to note that although we affirm the judgment of conviction in this case, I believe it is injudicious to not call the arresting officer as a witness in these matters if that officer is available. It seems to me inevitable that in future cases if a witness other than the arresting officer is called to testify on matters surrounding the arrest, that witness will be asked an essential question only the arresting officer could answer. If an objection to the question is sustained, the case may well be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence or, if that witness is allowed to answer, the conviction will be overturned on appeal because of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The opinion of the Court should be read with the understanding that, like most opinions of the Court, it is limited to the facts of the case, and under different facts the result might well be different.
[¶ 25] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, J., concurs.