Legal Opinion
Hicks-Bey v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 7, 1994No. 91-CF-644PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the court PER CURIAM.
Opinion by Associate Judge SULLIVAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part at page 576.
2Per curiam
Appellant, Rural Hicks-Bey, seeks reversal of his conviction for carnal knowledge, D.C.Code § 22-2801, on the ground that the trial judge violated his Sixth Amendment right to face-to-face confrontation with the minor victim by permitting the minor to testify at trial over closed-circuit television. Specifically, appellant contends that, in the absence of enabling legislation authorizing the use of closed-circuit testimony for minor victims, the trial judge lacked the…
3Cases cited12 opinions
- Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Coy v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Nelson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- United States v. Robert C. Lewis, United States of America v. Tommy M. Motlagh, United States of America v. James BoardleyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by15 opinions
- Grayson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1999
- In Re Jam. J.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- Mitchell v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Scales v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Williams v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.