witness. To ease the witness’s testimony, they can either alter my voice and [sic] not show myself to the witness.” He then objected to not being permitted to conduct cross-examination by personally questioning Child as opposed to having to write out questions to be asked by his standby counsel. In the context of the two options proposed by the prosecutor, the Defendant’s response was that he did not object to Child testifying by closed circuit television. Therefore, he cannot now raise that issue on appeal. Defendant also asserts that prohibiting him from conducting the cross-examination violated his right of confrontation. The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution includes the right to cross-examine one’s accusers. State v. Hooper, 145 Idaho 139, 176 P.3d 911 (2007) (<HOLDING>). The only person who could testify to the
holding that videotaped interview between child and investigator was admissible holding that a videotaped interview between the child and an investigator was admissible holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim holding that it was error to admit a videotaped interview of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse because the defendant was deprived of the right to crossexamine the child holding that even if videotaped interview of child violated sparkmans constitutional right to confront this witness the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where appellant admitted engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with child among other evidence of direct accusation of criminal sexual conduct