In an effort to alleviate the stress experienced by a child sexual abuse victim in trial proceedings, article 38.071 mandates the admissibility of a taped interview with the child victim on the condition that the child is available to testify and be cross-examined. In Jolly v. State (1984), the Houston Court of Appeals for the 14th district held that the videotape was the child's direct testimony and that Jolly could have both called and cross-examined her. Subsequent to 'Jolly,' however, the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals decided two cases -- Long v. State and Powell v. State -- which, taken together, declared article 38.071 unconstitutional on its face because it obstructs the accused's right to confront accusers. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is currently hearing Jolly's case. Although the argument for unconstitutionality is clear if Texas law requires literal face-to-face confrontation between the accused and accusers, countervailing arguments for protecting the witness and making convictions easier to obtain in child sexual abuse cases are strong. The right of the defense to cross-examine the witness in court immediately upon the introduction of a tape might well foreclose any confrontation clause objection to the legislation. 133 footnotes.