Hadden v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed John C. Hadden’s conviction for first-degree sexual assault. The court held that his custodial statements were admissible because he did not clearly request an attorney under the rule adopted from Davis v. United States, and it rejected his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and jury instructions. The court also announced that, after publication, giving a flight instruction in a criminal case would constitute reversible error, although flight could still be proven and argued as circumstantial evidence.

Holdings

1. The custodial statement was admissible because Hadden did not clearly request an attorney after receiving Miranda warnings, and law enforcement was not required to cease questioning or clarify an ambiguous reference to counsel.
2. The evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find Hadden guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The trial court erred in giving the challenged discrepancy instruction and its use is specifically disapproved, but the error was harmless in light of the totality of the instructions.
4. For criminal cases tried after publication of the opinion in the advance sheets of Pacific Reporter Third, giving a flight instruction to the jury constitutes reversible error, although the prosecution may still introduce and argue evidence of flight.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hadden's custodial statement was inadmissible because he requested counsel or made an equivocal invocation of his right to counsel.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported Hadden's first-degree sexual assault conviction despite the victim's inability to identify him as the attacker.
3. Whether the trial court erred by giving jury instructions concerning discrepancies in testimony and flight.

Disposition

affirmed