State v. Rockafellor

The Confrontation Clause is “primarily concerned with ensuring the reliability of evidence offered by witnesses, and ensuring that a defendant and jury have adequate access to witnesses … [n]o element of the right to confrontation promises the defendant that his entire face will be literally seen.” Furthermore, “[w]hen an inherently prejudicial security measure is at issue, a trial court must make a determination that such restraints are justified by a state interest specific to that particular trial.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 US 622, 629 (2005); State v. Guzek, 358 Or 251, 263 (2015).

Appellant appealed his convictions of one count of driving under the influence of intoxicants (ORS 813.010(4), and one count of resisting arrest (ORS 162.315). At the time of Appellant’s trial, all unvaccinated individuals were required to wear face masks while in the courtroom but were required to remove them while testifying. On the morning of trial, Appellant moved in limine to not wear a mask even though he was not vaccinated because the mask requirement was akin to “shackling,” and posed Confrontation Clause issues. Although Appellant had “passed a COVID test” the day before trial, the trial court denied Appellant’s request and proceeded with the trial. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court abused its discretion and violated Appellant’s constitutional rights by ordering Appellant, and other unvaccinated individuals, to wear a facemask. Appellant’s specific constitutional arguments focused on the right to face-to-face confrontation under Article I, section 11, of the Sixth Amendment, and the right to appear without visible restraints under Article I, section 11, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court rejected both arguments. The Confrontation Clause is “primarily concerned with ensuring the reliability of evidence offered by witnesses, and ensuring that a defendant and jury have adequate access to witnesses … [n]o element of the right to confrontation promises the defendant that his entire face will be literally seen.” Furthermore, “[w]hen an inherently prejudicial security measure is at issue, a trial court must make a determination that such restraints are justified by a state interest specific to that particular trial.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 US 622, 629 (2005); State v. Guzek, 358 Or 251, 263 (2015). Applying such rules, the Court held that because “all witnesses were ordered to remove their masks while testifying," Defendant’s Confrontation Clause right to confront witnesses was not impaired. Likewise, the Court held the requirement for Defendant to wear a mask was not akin to “shackling” and was not prejudicial because it applied to all other unvaccinated individuals in the courtroom, and supported the state’s interest in protecting the health of others. Therefore, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when enforcing the order. Affirmed.