Prosecutor’s standing between defendant and minor witness violates confrontation clause, but considered harmless error in this case: SPARKMAN V. COM. (SC 4/28/2008)

SPARKMAN V. COM.
CRIMINAL:  Confrontation Clause
2006-SC-000303-MR.pdf
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
OPINION BY LAMBERT
PENDLETON COUNTY
DATE RENDERED: 4/24/2008 -74

SC affirmed Sparkman’s convictions and 20 year sentence for burglary, assault, and violation of EPO. Because there was no finding of compelling need and because the method of testimony was not within the parameters of KRS 421.350, SC concluded that the trial court committed error when it allowed the prosecutor to stand between Defendant and the minor witnesses when they were giving testimony on direct examination. However, SC went on to find error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the other evidence presented at trial.

Digested by Scott Byrd, Olgin and Byrd Attorneys