Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02004/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dawson Cole
Appellant
Robert Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

DAWSON COLE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT TANSY, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2004 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 87-0318 M) 

Teresa E. Storch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for the Petitioner-Appellant. 

M. Katherine Brito Zinn (Hal Stratton, Attorney General, State of 

New Mexico, with her on the brief), Assistant Attorney General, 

State of New Mexico, for the Respondent-Appellee. 

Before TACBA., and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and NOT'l'INGHAM, 

District Judge.* 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

* Honorable Edward W. Nottingham, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2004 Document: 01019726081 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 1 
This appeal is from a district court's denial of appellant 

Dawson Cole's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Cole argues the 

state trial court violated his sixth amendment right to confront 

the witnesses against him by admitting a statement from an 

unavailable witness and denied him his right to due process and a 

fair trial by restricting his counsel's closing argument. Cole 

further alleges the trial court erred in refusing to acquit him on 

an attempted armed robbery charge after the jury returned a 

finding that he had not used a firearm in the commission of the 

crime. Finally, Cole contends the evidence was insufficient to 

support a conviction for attempted armed robbery. We affirm. 

At trial, Officer Hamner testified that while she was working 

near the Last Chance Package Store in Roswell, New Mexico on the 

evening of July 24, 1985, what she believed was a green Plymouth 

pulled up in front of her. The driver told Hamner she had just 

seen a man coming out of the Last Chance Package Store with a gun 

in his hand. She also gave Hamner a brief description of the man 

and provided part of the license tag number for the motorcycle he 

was riding. The witness was excited, talking fast, and pointing 

around. Hamner remembered she had seen a person meeting the 

description given by the witness only moments before. Meanwhile, 

Hamner received a dispatch that an armed robbery had taken place 

at the Last Chance Package Store. She did not ask the witness to 

identify herself but instead went immediately to the scene of the 

crime. The state concedes it made no effort to locate the missing 

witness. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2004 Document: 01019726081 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 2 
Cole contends the hearsay statements of the unidentified 

witness were admitted into evidence in violation of his 

constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. We 

review de novo the issue of unavailabilit y under the Confrontation 

Clause. Martinez~ Sullivan, 881 F.2d 921, 926 (lOth Cir. 1989), 

cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 740 (1990). The Supreme Court has held 

that to protect a criminal defendant's sixth and fourteenth 

amendme nt right to confront witnesses, hearsay evidence will be 

admitted against a defendant only if the government shows: (1) 

the witness is unavailable and (2) the statement bear s sufficient 

indicia of reliability. Ohio ~ Roberts, 448 u.s. 56, 65-66 

(1980); ~also Martinez, 881 F.2d at 924. 

The state bears the burden of establishing the predicate of 

unavailability for the admission of a hearsay statement. 

Martinez, 881 F.2d at 924. "(I]f there is a possibility, albeit 

remote, that affirmative measures might produce the declarant, the 

obligation of good faith may demand their effectuation. " Robert s, 

448 u.s. at 74 (emphasis in original). The lengths to which the 

state must go to produce a witness is a question of 

reasonableness. California~ Green, 399 u.s. 149, 189 n.22 

(1970). However, the Court noted in Roberts: "The law does not 

require the doing of a futile act. Thus, if no possibility of 

procuring the witness exists • 'good faith' demands nothing of 

the prosecution." 448 u.s. at 74. 

Here, the state had no reasonable means available to secure 

the presence of the unidentified witness at trial. Hamner could 

not identify the witness beyond the fact she was a female between 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2004 Document: 01019726081 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 3 
thirty-five and forty years old driving what Hamner thought was a 

green Plymouth. Based on such limited information, it would have 

been futile for the state to have attempted to locate the witness 

.in a city of more than 35,000 people by checking the records of 

the Department of Motor Vehicles. There is no indication the 

witness was even a resident of the city. 

We are convinced it would be unreasonable to expect Hamner to 

request the witness to identify herself or report to the police 

station. Because Hamner had just seen the person the witness 

described, she reasonably believed she might be able to apprehend 

the suspect. She therefore immediately left the scene. Hamner 

responded appropriately to what she reasonably believed was an 

emergency situation. We hold the district court properly 

concluded this unidentified witness was unavailable. 

The Roberts decision also requires that a statement by an 

unavailable witness bear adequate indicia of reliability. 

Reliability may be inferred without any further showing if the 

statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. 

Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66. This court has held that "the 'excited 

utterance' exception to the hearsay rule is firmly enough rooted 

in our jurisprudence so that reliability may be inferred within 

the rationale of Roberts." Martinez, 881 F.2d at 928. 

Cole contends the unidentified witness's statement should not 

be admitted as an exception to the rule against hearsay because it 

was the product of conscious reflection containing a description 

of the perpetrator of the crime and a partial license plate 

number. We are convinced the unidentified witness's statement was 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2004 Document: 01019726081 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 4 
admissible against petitioner as an excited utterance. Title 11 

of the New Mexico Statutes, S 803(B) permits hearsay to be 

admitted into evidence if it is an excited utterance. A statement 

qualifies as an excited utterance if: (1) a startling event has 

occurred, (2) the statement was made while the declarant was under 

the stress or excitement caused by that event, and (3) the 

statement relates to the startling event. See, ~' State ~ 

Maestas, 584 P.2d 182, 187 (N.M. Ct. App . 1978). 

Here, all three requirements are met. The witness described 

a startling event she had just seen -- a man leaving the Last 

Chance Package Store with a gun in his hand. The witness was 

excited, talking fast, and pointing around -- all indications the 

witness was still under the stress and excitement of seeing a 

robbery take place. Finally, the statement describing the man 

with a gun clearly related to the startling event of the robbery. 

The fact the witness also observed the man's clothing and a 

license plate number does not indicate the statement was not an 

excited utterance. Because both the unavailability of the 

declarant and the reliability of her statement have been 

established, admission of Hamner's testimony about the 

unidentified witness does not violate Cole's sixth amendment 

right. 

Cole also contends the district court violated his right to 

due process and a fair trial by restricting his closing argument. 

A district court has broad discretion in limiting the scope of 

closing arguments. Herring~ New York, 422 u.s. 853, 862 {1975); 

United States Y..!.. Rivera, 778 F.2d 591, 593-94 (lOth Cir. 1985), 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-2004 Document: 01019726081 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 5 
cert. denied, 475 u.s. 1068 (1986); United States~ Baker, 638 

F.2d 198, 203 (lOth Cir. 1980). Here, the state trial court 

limited the closing argument of defense counsel when he began to 

speculate about possible fabrication by Hamner in her testimony 

regardi ng the unavailable witness. No evidence had been presented 

at trial to support this allegation of fabrication. We find no 

abuse of discretion and certainly no error of constitutional 

dimensions in the trial court's decision to thus restrict defense 

counsel's closing arguments. 

Cole contends he should have been acquitted of the attempted 

armed robbery charge. We disagree. The jury was instructed it 

could find Cole guilty of armed robbery only if they believed 

beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner "was armed with ~ 

firearm." The instruction on attempted armed robbery, however, 

told the jury members they could convict Cole if they found he 

"began to do an act which constituted a substantial part of the 

armed robbery but failed to conunit the armed robbery. " The jury 

was not required to find petitioner used a firearm to convict him 

of attempted armed robbery. We hold the two findings are not 

inconsi stent. 

Finally, Cole contends the evidence was insufficient to 

support a verdict on the attempted armed robbery charge. We 

disagree . Lori Salcido, the clerk working at the Last Chance 

Package Store at the time of the attempted armed robbery, 

testified Cole carried a firearm into the store. Salcido stated 

that he pointed the gun at her and demanded money. She testified 

Cole never cocked the trigger nor verbally threatened to shoot her 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-2004 Document: 01019726081 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 6 
with the gun. Although she was frightened, Salcido did not give 

petitioner the money because "he looked more scared" than she was. 

From this testimony, a reasonable jury could conclude Cole began 

to do an act constituting a substantial part of armed robbery. 

Because petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of 

important federal rights, the certificate of probable cause is 

granted. See Barefoot~ Estelle, 463 u.s. 880 (1983). We AFFIRM 

the order of the district court denying the petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-2004 Document: 01019726081 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 7