Jensen v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed Zachary Dwight Fiske Jensen’s convictions for two counts of aggravated assault arising from threats involving a knife against his girlfriend and their son. The court held that limiting cross-examination about a related guardianship dispute did not violate the Confrontation Clause and that testimony concerning the victims’ emotional states was admissible. The court found that the prosecutor’s repeated questions asking Jensen whether other witnesses were lying were improper, but concluded the misconduct was harmless.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate Jensen's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by prohibiting inquiry into Spears's later guardianship and custody proceedings because Jensen failed to demonstrate that the evidence was relevant to a motive to fabricate her testimony.
2. The testimony concerning Spears's and S.O.'s emotional states during the assault and immediately afterward was relevant and admissible, and its admission did not constitute plain error.
3. It is prosecutorial misconduct and error for a prosecutor to cross-examine a criminal defendant using 'were-they-lying,' 'not telling the truth,' or equivalent questions about contradictory testimony, under any circumstance; a defendant cannot open the door to such questioning.
4. The prosecutorial misconduct was harmless and did not require reversal because, considering the entire record, there was no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been more favorable to Jensen absent the improper questioning.
5. Cumulative error did not warrant reversal because the court found only one harmless error and no other errors, prejudicial or otherwise.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court violated Jensen's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by limiting his cross-examination of Spears about a guardianship and custody dispute, and whether the court erred in denying a new trial on that basis.
2. Whether testimony and argument concerning Spears's and S.O.'s emotional states constituted improper victim-impact evidence and plain error.
3. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by repeatedly asking Jensen whether Spears and an investigating officer were lying or not telling the truth.
4. Whether cumulative error required reversal of Jensen's convictions.

Disposition

affirmed