Abstract
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides individuals the right to confront witnesses testifying against them. For decades, Idaho case law has grappled with the delicate balance between protecting victims of sexual assault and upholding defendants’ rights to cross examine their accusers. This delicate balance is further exacerbated when sexual assault cases involve minors, particularly in deciding whether victim statements implicate the Confrontation Clause. The Idaho Supreme Court considers the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a defendant’s right to confront a witness has been violated, but the standard for when the Clause is triggered remains unclear.
This Note seeks to explore the evolution of the Confrontation Clause and how its evolution has impacted Idaho law. Additionally, it seeks to highlight how subjective information should be part of an evaluation that considers the totality of the circumstances. The Note will explore where the Confrontation Clause is not implicated by young children, and review dual-purpose interviews and the importance of distinguishing between an interview’s primary purpose and its sole purpose. Additionally, the Note will explore ways in which Idaho courts can follow controlling authority while providing appropriate avenues where children and their families can seek justice. In particular, this Note will advocate for the implementation of a new, explicit hearsay exception in Idaho that takes a declarant’s age and the harm they suffered into consideration when admitting statements into evidence.
Recommended Citation
Raquel Pearson,
Facing the Accused: The Confrontation Clause and Protecting Child Victims of Sexual Abuse,
62
Idaho L. Rev.
128
().
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-law-review/vol62/iss1/5
First Page
128
Last Page
148