Sarr v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed Michael Sarr’s convictions for aggravated assault and the associated restitution order. The court upheld the admission of the deceased victim’s recorded statements under the hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause analysis, affirmed convictions on Counts I, V, and VI, and reversed the convictions on Counts III and IV for insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury. The court also rejected Sarr’s speedy-trial claim and reversed and remanded the restitution order.

Holdings

1. Wing's recorded statements were admissible under W.R.E. 804(b)(6), except for her statements attributing spinal injury and MRI findings to the coup-stick incident because the State did not show that those statements were more probative than medical records or expert testimony obtainable through reasonable efforts.
2. The admission of the remaining recorded statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because Wing was unavailable and the statements bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness based on the totality of the circumstances.
3. The evidence was insufficient to support Counts III and IV because the State failed to prove serious bodily injury as defined by statute.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support convictions on Counts I, V, and VI, and the alternative instruction permitting conviction upon proof of intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct did not require reversal because the evidence supported at least one alternative.
5. The restitution order had to be reversed and remanded because it relied in part on the convictions for Counts III and IV, which were set aside.
6. There was no violation of W.R.Cr.P. 48 because the continuance was excludable under the rule's due-administration-of-justice provision, placing trial within the 120-day period, and Sarr did not vigorously assert the right.
7. Sarr failed to establish a constitutional speedy-trial violation under the Barker factors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wing's recorded statements were admissible under W.R.E. 804(b)(6) and consistent with the federal and Wyoming Confrontation Clauses.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported each conviction, including proof of serious bodily injury for Counts III and IV.
3. Whether the district court properly ordered restitution based in part on conduct underlying Counts III and IV.
4. Whether the delay before trial violated W.R.Cr.P. 48 or the constitutional speedy-trial test under Barker v. Wingo.

Disposition

other