State v. Raney

A “defendant's right to confront witnesses may be satisfied…where (1) denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.”

Appellant appealed his convictions for second-degree assault constituting domestic violence and fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence.

In his second assignment of error, appellant contended that the trial court erred by requiring witnesses to wear masks as a violation of his constitutional right to confront his witnesses. The court disagreed, recognizing that the right accommodates public policy as long as the four elements of confrontation are met: physical presence, oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor by the trier of fact. The court held that a “defendant's right to confront witnesses may be satisfied…where (1) denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845 (1990). 

Appellant, in his third and fourth assignments of error, argued that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the requisite mental state with respect to the physical injury element of second- and fourth-degree assault. The court determined that the jury instruction with respect to the fourth-degree assault conviction was sufficient, but agreed with appellant when it failed to properly instruct for the second-degree assault charge. The court reasoned that, with the second-degree assault conviction, the instruction was unclear and misstated the burden because it did not state that a defendant must knowingly engage in assaultive conduct, and it did not state that a defendant must be at least criminally negligent with respect to causing injury. The court held that this error was not harmless and reversed the conviction.

Conviction for second-degree assault reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.