Can child interview videos go to the jury room during deliberations? State v. Cruz Explained

In State v. Cruz, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical issue in child abuse prosecutions: whether video recordings of police interviews with child victims can be taken into the jury room during deliberations. The court’s ruling provides important guidance for practitioners handling cases involving Rule 15.5 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Background and Facts

Cruz was charged with multiple counts of sodomy upon a child involving his girlfriend’s six-year-old daughter. The child was interviewed twice at Children’s Justice Centers, and these interviews were video recorded. At trial, the State moved for admission of the recordings under Rule 15.5, which allows admission of out-of-court statements by child witnesses under certain conditions. The trial court admitted both interviews and, over Cruz’s objection, allowed the jury to take the video recordings into deliberations.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether video-recorded police interviews of children should be treated as exhibits that can accompany the jury during deliberations, or as testimonial evidence that must remain excluded from the jury room. Cruz also raised issues regarding his confrontation rights and the trial court’s handling of the child’s nonverbal responses during the recorded interviews.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in allowing the video recordings into the jury room. The court reasoned that video recordings of police interviews constitute “recorded testimony” or fall within the category of “exhibits which are testimonial in nature” that should not be given to juries during deliberations under Rule 17 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized that such recordings pose the same danger of undue emphasis as written transcripts of testimony, noting that “replay of a video recording is tantamount to having the witness testify a second time.”

However, the court found the error harmless. The case did not present a “she-said/he-said” scenario but rather a “she-said/but-she-was-coached” defense. Both sides had an interest in the jury scrutinizing the interviews, and the jury’s mixed verdict suggested careful deliberation without undue emphasis on the recordings.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that video recordings of child interviews, while admissible under Rule 15.5, should not accompany juries during deliberations. Defense counsel should object specifically to this practice, distinguishing between the admissibility of the recordings and their presence in the jury room. Prosecutors should be prepared for courts to exclude such recordings from deliberations while still allowing their presentation during trial. The ruling also reinforces the importance of preserving objections and avoiding invited error through strategic choices at trial.