Summary
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Jason Gerald Phillip's conviction for aggravated assault and battery arising from a bar fight in which he bit part of another patron's ear. The court held that the aggressor self-defense instruction was supported by the evidence and that the defendant's Affidavit of Indigency was properly admitted for impeachment. The court also rejected claims involving collateral impeachment, falsus in uno, equal protection, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury that an aggressor or person who provokes a conflict generally forfeits the right to self-defense unless the person withdraws in good faith.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Phillip's affidavit of indigency as a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment.
- Whether the jury instruction and prosecutorial argument improperly invoked the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus maxim.
- Whether admission of the affidavit violated Phillip's rights to equal protection, against compulsory self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, or to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
Holdings
- The district court did not commit plain error by giving the aggressor self-defense instruction because the evidence reasonably supported a finding that Phillip was the aggressor, and the instruction correctly stated Wyoming law.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Phillip's affidavit of indigency to impeach his credibility with prior inconsistent statements.
- Phillip failed to establish plain error arising from the falsus in uno instruction or the prosecutor's argument because the maxim was not plainly invoked and the record did not show prejudice.
- Because the affidavit was used only to impeach Phillip after he testified, its admission did not violate the Fifth Amendment, even if the affidavit might have been unlawfully obtained or otherwise inadmissible as substantive evidence.
- Phillip's Sixth Amendment claim failed because evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the right to counsel may still be used for impeachment when the defendant testifies.
Key quotations
“our task is not to weigh the evidence, [but] only to determine whether the district court could reasonably conclude that there was competent evidence from which the jury might find [the party claiming self-defense] was the aggressor.” (225 P.3d at 509)
“Miranda barred the prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made while in custody prior to having or effectively waiving counsel. It does not follow from Miranda that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecution's case in chief is barred for all purposes, provided of course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards.” (225 P.3d at 514)
“Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury.” (225 P.3d at 514)
Factual background
Phillip was involved in a July 18, 2008, bar fight in Casper, Wyoming, during which he bit off part of another patron's ear. The evidence showed a verbal confrontation followed by physical contact; although the victim threw the first punch, the victim testified that Phillip approached him aggressively before the punch. During trial, Phillip's testimony about his jewelry and income conflicted with sworn statements in his affidavit of indigency.
Procedural history
After a bar altercation, Phillip was charged with and convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and battery. He timely appealed. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the unobjected-to instructional and constitutional claims for plain error and the evidentiary admission ruling for abuse of discretion.