In State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061, 108 S. Ct. 1017, 98 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1988), the defendant was charged with risk of injury to or impairing the morals of a child and sexual assault in the fourth degree. See State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. 684. The state sought permission of the trial court to take the testimony of the minor victim by videotape outside the physical presence of the defendant. Id., 685. The court granted the state permission, and the videotaped testimony was entered into evidence. Id., 687. The court in Jarzbek noted that "although the trial court did not rely on General Statutes 54-86g, because that statute did not become effective until after the initiation of this action, the videotaping procedure it approved is essentially the same procedure now prescribed by 54-86g a." State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. 686 n.2. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the court's order concerning the videotaped testimony violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him and to be present at trial. Id., 689. The Court held that "a trial court must determine, at an evidentiary hearing, whether the state has demonstrated a compelling need for excluding the defendant from the witness room during the videotaping of a minor victim's testimony. In order to satisfy its burden of proving compelling need, the state must show that the minor victim would be so intimidated, or otherwise inhibited, by the physical presence of the defendant that the trustworthiness of the victim's testimony would be seriously called into question. Furthermore, the state bears the burden of proving such compelling need by clear and convincing evidence. . . . Although the trial court may consider the well-being of the witness as a significant factor in its analysis, the state cannot prove need simply by demonstrating that the victim would suffer some harm if forced to testify in the presence of the accused. We reiterate that, in light of the constitutional right of confrontation at stake here, the primary focus of the trial court's inquiry must be on the reliability of the minor victim's testimony, not on the injury that the victim may suffer by testifying in the presence of the accused." Id., 704-705. The Court held that the practice of videotaping the testimony of young children outside the physical presence of the defendant is constitutionally permissible under certain circumstances. In that case, the court held that "a trial court must determine, at an evidentiary hearing, whether the state has demonstrated a compelling need for excluding the defendant from the witness room during the videotaping of a minor victim's testimony. In order to satisfy its burden of proving compelling need, the state must show that the minor victim would be so intimidated, or otherwise inhibited, by the physical presence of the defendant that the trustworthiness of the victim's testimony would be seriously called into question. Furthermore, the state bears the burden of proving such compelling need by clear and convincing evidence. . . . Although the trial court may consider the well-being of the witness as a significant factor in its analysis, the state cannot prove need simply by demonstrating that the victim would suffer some harm if forced to testify in the presence of the accused." Id., at 704-705. The court reiterated that "in light of the constitutional right of confrontation at stake here, the primary focus of the trial court's inquiry must be on the reliability of the minor victim's testimony, not on the injury that the victim may suffer by testifying in the presence of the accused." Id. at 705. In State v. Jarzbek, in which the Supreme Court held that in criminal prosecutions involving alleged sexual abuse of children of tender years, "a trial court must determine, at an evidentiary hearing, whether the state has demonstrated a compelling need for excluding the defendant from the witness room during the videotaping of a minor victim's testimony." Id., 704. In Jarzbek, the defendant was excluded from the witness room during the videotaping of the minor victim's testimony. State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. 684. The Court held that this departure from strict compliance with confrontation requirements was appropriate only where a case-by-case analysis is performed to "balance the individual defendant's right of confrontation against the interest of the state in obtaining reliable testimony from the particular minor victim in question." Id., 704. In Jarzbek, the claimed harm was that the special procedure denied the defendant his right to confrontation. Id., 689. The Court mandated "a case-by-case analysis, whereby a trial court must balance the individual defendant's right of confrontation against the interest of the state in obtaining reliable testimony from the particular minor victim in question." Id., 258 Conn. at 50. In Jarzbek, the Court held that the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence applied to the waiver of the right to confrontation. Id., at 704-705. In Jarzbek, the Court held, under the facts of that case and the public policy issue that they implicated, that a clear and convincing evidence standard applies to evidentiary hearings conducted to determine whether a defendant has waived his constitutional right to confrontation. State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. at 705. "We conclude that, in criminal prosecutions involving the alleged sexual abuse of children of tender years, the practice of videotaping the testimony of a minor victim outside the physical presence of the defendant is, in appropriate circumstances, constitutionally permissible. Our holding that appropriate circumstances may warrant a departure from strict compliance with confrontation requirements does not, however, signal a relaxation of the underlying evidentiary requirement that appropriate circumstances be proven to exist. . . . We instead mandate a case-by-case analysis, whereby a trial court must balance the individual defendant's right of confrontation against the interest of the state in obtaining reliable testimony from the particular minor victim in question." State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. at 704.