Summary
The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed Brian Keith Farmer’s aggravated assault conviction. The court held that prior trial testimony from an unavailable witness was admissible because the State made reasonable efforts to locate the witness and Farmer had an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination. The court also upheld the refusal to give proposed jury instructions and rejected Farmer’s unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims under plain-error review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly admitted John Biddix's prior trial testimony under the former-testimony hearsay exception and the Confrontation Clause.
- Whether the district court erred by refusing Farmer's proposed jury instructions concerning the elements of aggravated assault, defense of home or habitation, and the duty to retreat.
- Whether prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument deprived Farmer of a constitutional right to a fair trial.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding John Biddix unavailable and admitting his prior sworn testimony because the State made reasonable, good-faith efforts to locate him and Farmer had an adequate prior opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine him.
- Farmer's criticisms of the limited cross-examination at the first trial did not establish ineffective assistance or defeat admission of the prior testimony.
- The district court did not commit reversible error by refusing Farmer's proposed instructions because the aggravated-assault elements and self-defense principles were adequately covered by the instructions given, and the evidence did not support instructions on defense of home or habitation or a duty to retreat.
- The prosecutor's comments during closing argument were permissible comments on the evidence rather than improper vouching, and Farmer failed to establish plain error or prejudice.
Key quotations
“"[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent the defense might wish."” (¶ 16, 124 P.3d at 706)
“"[A] defendant has the right to have instructions on his theory of the case or his theory of defense presented to the jury if the instructions sufficiently inform the jury of the theory or defense and if competent evidence exists which supports the law expressed in the instructions."” (¶ 23, 124 P.3d at 707)
“"First, the record must be clear as to the incident which is alleged as error. Second, the party claiming the error amounted to plain error must demonstrate that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated. Finally, that party must prove a substantial right has been denied him and, as a result, he has been materially prejudiced."” (¶ 26, 124 P.3d at 709)
Factual background
Farmer and Joshua Goodhue were neighbors in a mobile-home park and became involved in an altercation after Farmer went outside in response to loud noises and a confrontation developed near the properties. Farmer stabbed Goodhue in the chest, but claimed he acted in self-defense after Goodhue and others attacked him. A witness, John Biddix, testified at Farmer's first trial, but the State could not locate him before the second trial; the district court admitted his prior sworn testimony after finding him unavailable.
Procedural history
Farmer was convicted of aggravated assault at his first trial. While his appeal was pending, the parties stipulated that he was entitled to a new trial because he had not been represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing. After a second preliminary hearing, Farmer was retried and convicted. The district court entered judgment and sentence on May 28, 2004, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.