In the Interest of E. T., a Child

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest of E. T., a Child

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In the Interest of E. T., a Child. Read the opinion of the Court — 342 Ga. App. 710 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 21, 2016·No. A16A1575·Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 21, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1575. IN THE INTEREST OF E. T., a child.

In this case, the appellant raised and the trial court ruled on the issue of whether the appellant’s rights to confront the witnesses testifying against him, as found in Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XIV of the Constitution of Georgia and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, were violated when the State introduced the adult victim’s testimony at his delinquency proceeding via a twoway video-conference. This issue involves construction of the right to confrontation as found in both the state and federal constitutions, over which the Supreme Court of Georgia has exclusive jurisdiction. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys. v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657, 657, 469 SE2d 22, 24 (1996); 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II. Further, resolution of this question has not been directly addressed by the United States Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Georgia. See Wrotten v. New York, 560 U.S. 959 (130 SCt 2520, 177 LEd2d 316) (2010) (this issue was “not obviously answered by Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836” (2010), J. Sotomayor, commenting). Accordingly, Case No. A16A1575 is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 11/21/2016

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 21, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1575. IN THE INTEREST OF E. T., a child.

In this case, the appellant raised and the trial court ruled on the issue of whether the appellant’s rights to confront the witnesses testifying against him, as found in Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XIV of the Constitution of Georgia and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, were violated when the State introduced the adult victim’s testimony at his delinquency proceeding via a twoway video-conference. This issue involves construction of the right to confrontation as found in both the state and federal constitutions, over which the Supreme Court of Georgia has exclusive jurisdiction. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys. v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657, 657, 469 SE2d 22, 24 (1996); 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II. Further, resolution of this question has not been directly addressed by the United States Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Georgia. See Wrotten v. New York, 560 U.S. 959 (130 SCt 2520, 177 LEd2d 316) (2010) (this issue was “not obviously answered by Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836” (2010), J. Sotomayor, commenting). Accordingly, Case No. A16A1575 is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 11/21/2016

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

In the Interest of E. T., a Child, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

In the Interest of E. T., a Child (In the Interest of E. T., a Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related