Harrell v. State

2011 WY 129 (Wyo. 2011) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · September 16, 2011 · No. S-11-0035

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Christopher David Harrell’s convictions for sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault and battery. The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of Harrell’s prior battery acquittal after a witness mentioned an earlier arrest, particularly because a curative instruction was given and Harrell failed to show prejudice or plain error.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
HILL, Justice; KITE, C.J.; GOLDEN, J.; HILL, J.; VOIGT, J.; BURKE, J.
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
September 16, 2011
Docket number
S-11-0035
Procedural posture
Harrell appealed his convictions for first-degree sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault and battery, arguing that the district court erred by excluding evidence that he had been acquitted of a prior battery charge.
Standard of review
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Because Harrell did not contemporaneously object, the challenged ruling was reviewed for plain error; reversal also required a showing that a substantial right was affected and that prejudice resulted.
Precedential value
Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Christopher David Harrell v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

evidenceimpeachmentsixth amendmentpreservation of errorappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court committed plain error or abused its discretion by refusing to admit evidence that Harrell had been acquitted of a prior battery charge after a witness referred to the earlier arrest.
  2. Whether exclusion of the acquittal evidence violated Harrell's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process or prejudiced his defense.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion or commit plain error by excluding evidence of Harrell's prior battery acquittal. The evidence was not proper impeachment because the officer was merely repeating what the victim had told him, and Harrell failed to demonstrate prejudice.
  2. Harrell did not establish a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process because the excluded evidence was not shown to be materially useful to his defense and he failed to show prejudice.

Key quotations

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Harrell the opportunity to introduce evidence that he had been previously acquitted of battery, and Harrell suffered no prejudice. (261 P.3d at 239; ¶ 16)

Factual background

Harrell and the victim, GP, had been dating, and GP had obtained a domestic-violence protection order against him. After GP brought Harrell to her home, she testified that an argument escalated into strangulation, assault, and rape. At trial, an officer referred to Harrell's earlier arrest and appeared to associate it with a protection-order violation, although the earlier incident had involved a battery charge of which Harrell had been acquitted. The district court excluded evidence of the battery acquittal and instructed the jury to disregard testimony regarding the earlier arrest.

Procedural history

After a jury convicted Harrell of three counts of first-degree sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault and battery, the district court imposed consecutive and concurrent prison sentences. During trial, the court excluded evidence concerning Harrell's prior battery charge and acquittal, but gave a curative instruction concerning testimony about an earlier arrest. Harrell appealed, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…