Under the new case "Coranado v. State" can the state play the forensic child interview after a child has testified in court and was subject to cross-examination of the defense expert at the trial of the defendant?

Objection, hearsay.

Please state an exception that would authorize admission. (There might be a couple.)

prior inconsistant statement, rule of optional completeness;then exiating mental emotional or physical condition; recorded recollection, statement against interest

Response counsel?

Prior consistent statement is about the only realistic exception that might apply. And that depends on cross-examination suggesting the child made something up after being interviewed.

You could use the rule of optional completeness only if the defense wanted to enter a portion of the video. Then you could get the rest of it in for proper context.

The only things you could get in for then-existing mental/physical/emotional condition would be if the child said "I'm cold" or "I hurt", etc. Stuff at the time of the interview. Describing what happened in the past ("He touched me and it hurt") isn't a then-existing condition. I could only see that being relevant if it was an acute interview and the child talked about something still hurting, but you'd only be able to get in the limited portion talking about that.

Recorded recollection would only work if the child didn't remember anything now, and even then I'd be pretty hesitant about using it.

How is a forensic interview a statement against the child's interest?

AW, it would only be against interest if there were material in the interview that contradicted victim's testimony, or something similar. Normally, I can't think of a reason that the State would want to introduce a prior inconsistent statement.

Using this exception to try to skirt Crawford is in my opinion very dangerous.

Even if there was something inconsistent, I don't see how the statement would've been against interest at the time it was made. The whole point of the exception is that you're not going to lie about something you know will send you to prison. Maybe if the child admitted in the interview that they'd made everything up when they talked to the police, since that would be admitting to the offense of filing a false report. But I can't think of anything that would be against the child's interest in the interview and would be something useful to us to have admitted!

I agree with you on the danger. And it's also important to remember that just because you can get past Crawford doesn't mean it's admissible. You still have to meet a hearsay exception.

There is case Castillo v State out of El Paso that allowed the Rule Of Optional COmpleteness applies if a defense attorney even alludes to the interview in his cross examination of the victim. The Court upheld the entry of the video.

The attorney in Castillo did a lot more than just reference the video. He pulled out specific statements from it to question the victim about, suggested that it was very different from her trial testimony, and directly asked her questions like "if we watched the video, we wouldn't see that?" I wouldn't make that case any broader than it is.

Yes Andrea, I was just pointing out that your statement that the actual video had to get in was incorrect.

Yes Andrea but you were incorrect that the parts f the actual video needed to be introduced.

Also credille v state, 925 sw2d 112 also allows forensic video in when mere questioning about video without showing it.

You still have to enter a portion of the video, whether you're actually playing part of it in front of the jury or using specific parts of it in your questioning. The entire point of the optional completeness rule is that you are completing something that's already been placed in front of the jury. If they don't do more than generally reference the video, you don't have anything to complete.

It's not a good idea to play fast and loose with these kinds of rules, because you run the serious risk of having to retry your entire case and put the child through having to testify again.

Thanks Andrea but I don't play fast and loose with the rules and I have never had a case reversed. Just wanted to make sure my colleagues were aware of favorable case law out their. Your statement that you have to enter the video was just wrong.

Optional completeness is a tricky rule. Lots of wiggle room and not a lot of clarity from appellate courts.

Optional completeness is 107. You also have 106, but be really careful with either. Does no good to get it in if it gets your case flipped later.

If in cross the defendant attacks the sexual assault nurse, and alleges that she either fabricated or was not accurate in the history given to the nurse by the child as to the assault, is the child interview tape now admissible to show prior consistent statement of the child (assuming the nurse history was given after the taped interview)

If the outcry statement of a child under 14 is made during a videoed forensic interview, it seems to me that the video of that statement should be admissible. It would be an absurd result if, in such a situation, the interviewer can testify about the outcry from memory, but the State can not show the video of that same outcry. The video would be 100% accurate, unlike the interviewer going by memory, and therefore would be better evidence. In a way it would be similar to showing a video of a convenience store hold up, even tho you have a live witness who can testify about the same event.

Even so, I think there is a case out there that hold contra to my position. Maybe someone can show me why I'm wrong.