Facts
- Sergio Stincer was tried in Kentucky state court for first-degree sodomy involving two minor girls.
- After the jury was sworn but before evidence was presented, the trial judge held an in-chambers hearing to determine the girls’ competency to testify.
- Stincer was excluded from the competency hearing; his counsel attended and participated.
- The questioning at the hearing was limited to whether the children could observe, remember, and narrate facts and could distinguish truth from falsehood.
- The trial judge found both children competent.
- At trial in open court, the prosecutor and defense counsel asked some similar background and truth–lie questions, and defense counsel cross-examined the children with Stincer present.
- Defense counsel did not ask the court to reconsider the competency findings after the children testified.
- Stincer was convicted.
Issues
- Whether excluding the defendant from an in-chambers competency hearing for child witnesses violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- Whether the exclusion violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to be present at critical stages of trial.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court.
- The Court held the Confrontation Clause was not violated because Stincer had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in open court with the defendant present.
- The Court held due process was not violated because the competency hearing was not a critical stage where the defendant’s presence would have contributed meaningfully to fairness.
Legal Principles
- The Confrontation Clause principally protects a defendant’s opportunity for effective cross-examination to test reliability; it does not guarantee the defendant’s presence at every proceeding involving witnesses.
- When a witness is cross-examined at trial in the defendant’s presence, exclusion from a preliminary, limited competency inquiry does not necessarily impair confrontation rights, especially where hearing questions can be repeated in open court.
- Competency hearings typically address capacity to perceive, remember, communicate, and appreciate the obligation to tell the truth, rather than the substantive facts of the alleged offense.
- Due process guarantees a right to be present at critical stages of trial when the defendant’s presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure; absence violates due process only upon a showing that it affected fairness or reliability.
- A trial court’s competency determination may be revisited during trial, including on motion after substantive testimony.
Conclusion
The Court held that excluding a defendant from an in-chambers competency hearing for child witnesses did not violate the Sixth Amendment where full cross-examination occurred at trial, and it did not violate due process because the defendant’s presence would have added little to the fairness of the limited competency inquiry.