Coronado v. State

R.D., a three-year-old child, was staying with her great-grandmother when her great-uncle, Tommy Coronado (defendant) and his wife moved into the great-grandmother’s home. R.D.’s parents began noticing strange behavior, and her father asked her if anyone had touched her “cookie,” her euphemism for her vagina. R.D. said that Coronado did. A week later, R.D.’s parents took her to an advocacy center, where a forensic interviewer videotaped an interview with her. In the interview, R.D. stated that Coronado touched her “cookie” and that her grandmother and aunt witnessed it. Before trial, the state (plaintiff) requested that the trial court admit the videotaped interview and find R.D., who was by then five years old, unavailable to testify. The trial court granted the motion, finding R.D. unavailable to testify and holding that defense counsel could submit written interrogatories to the forensic interviewer, who would ask those and any follow-up questions to R.D. in a second videotaped interview. Both videotaped interviews were admitted over Coronado’s objection. The jury found Coronado guilty of both touching and penetrating R.D.’s genitals, and he was sentenced to life in prison on both counts. Coronado appealed, arguing that the denial of his opportunity to cross-examine R.D. violated his right to confront the witness. The court of appeals found that R.D.’s statements were testimonial but that the trial court did not err in allowing cross-examination through written questions only. Coronado appealed.