Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02249/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02249-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Tansy
Appellee
Apolinario Vigil
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

. FILED 

Umted Stiff~ CoJut (){ AppeaJs 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT 2 6 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .ROBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

APOLINARIO VIGIL, 

aka Paul Vigil, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT TANSY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2249 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF N.M. 

(D.C. No. 87-1436-SC) 

Stephen P. McCue, Assistant Federal Defender, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, for Petitioner-Appellant. 

Hal Stratton, Attorney General; William McEuen, Assistant Attorney 

General, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for Respondent-Appellee. 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

After·examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unan~ously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 

34(1); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-2249 Document: 01019311070 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Vigil, who was convicted in the New Mexico courts of two 

counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor, appeals the 

denial of his petition for habeas corpus. 

Mr. Vigil was tried, convicted, and appealed his convictions. 

His convictions were overturned but he was later retried and again 

convicted. Prior to his first trial, a hearing was held to 

determine if the State could present the testimony of the sixyear-old victim by videotape. At this hearing, the State 

presented the testimony of Dr. Dinsmore, a clinical psychologist, 

and the court found "the child would suffer unreasonable mental or 

emotional harm by presenting live testimony and that there would 

be a diminished impact on the child by allowing her to give a 

video deposition." State v. Vigil, 103 N.M. 583, 585-86, 711 P.2d 

28, 30-31 (N.M. App. 1985). Mr. Vigil was present at the 

videotaping and defense counsel cross-examined the witness. Mr. 

Vigil raised the confrontation issue on the appeal, and although 

the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed on other grounds, the 

court found that his right to confront the minor witness had not 

been violated. State v. Vigil, 711 P.2d at 32. Prior to Mr. 

Vigil's second trial in 1986, the State sought permission to use 

the 1984 videotape alleging that the minor victim was still unable 

to testify without suffering unreasonable and unnecessary mental 

or emotional harm. Another hearing was held and the same 

psychologist again testified that the minor victim could not 

testify in open court and that producing a new videotape would be 

almost as difficult upon the victim as testifying in open court. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2249 Document: 01019311070 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 2 
The state court then granted the State's motion and the videotape 

was used at the retrial. Again, Mr. Vigil unsuccessfully raised 

the confrontation issue in his direct appeal following conviction. 

Mr. Vigil filed his petition for habeas corpus in the United 

States District Court and raised three issues: (1) was the 

petitioner's right to confrontation violated; (2) was the evidence 

sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) was Mr. Vigil 

properly sentenced. The district court referred the matter to the 

Magistrate who subsequently issued proposed findings and a 

recommended disposition denying Mr. Vigil relief, which the 

district court ultimately adopted. The district court issued a 

certificate of probable cause for this appeal. 

Mr. Vigil first contends that he has been denied his right to 

confrontation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. He argues 

that he has the right to face his accuser at trial and that a 

defendant has the right to compel the accuser to stand face to 

face with the defendant in front of the jury. We find no merit to 

this contention under the facts of this case. 

This court reviews de novo all questions of law and mixed 

questions of law and fact. Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 

1185, 1197 (lOth Cir. 1989). 

Mr. Vigil relies upon Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988), 

which held the defendant's right to confront the witnesses against 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2249 Document: 01019311070 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 3 
him was violated when a screen was erected in the court room that 

enabled the witness to avoid viewing the defendant as testimony 

was given. The case before us does not present this situation. 

Mr. Vigil was present and could see and be seen by his victim as 

she gave her sworn testimony. 

Since this case was filed, the Supreme Court decided Maryland 

v. Craig, 110 S. Ct. 3157 (1990). While not directly on point, 

this case stands for the proposition that the Confrontation Clause 

does not guarantee criminal defendants an absolute right to a 

face-to-face meeting with the witness. Id. at 3163. In Craig, 

the defendant was completely deprived of his right to face-to-face 

confrontation with the child witness as the witness testified via 

television monitor out of the presence of the defendant. This led 

the Court to announce that prior to the admission of such 

testimony the trial court must find "that the child witness would 

be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the 

presence of the defendant." Id. at 3169. The Court also stated: 

"[I]f the state interest were merely the interest in protecting 

child witnesses from courtroom trauma generally, denial of faceto-face confrontation would be unnecessary because the child could 

be permitted to testify in less intimidating surroundings, albeit 

with the defendant present." Id. In the case before us, Mr. 

Vigil had a face-to-face confrontation with his accuser in an 

adversarial setting, with his counsel, and this was all videotaped 

for playback to the jury. In addition, this procedure was not 

permitted until an adversarial hearing was held and the state 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2249 Document: 01019311070 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 4 
court had determined that testimony by the child victim in the 

courtroom would result in the child suffering unreasonable mental 

and emotional harm. The Constitution requires no more. 

Regarding 

deposition of 

Mr. 

the 

Vigil's request to 

child witness, we 

take a "new" videotaped 

are unable to find a 

reasonable basis to grant this request. Considering it would be 

duplicative testimony and "add[] little or anything to the truth 

seeking process," People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741, 750 (Colo. 

1989), we decline Mr. Vigil's request. See also Nelson v. Farrey, 

874 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 835 

(1990). None of the contentions advanced by Mr. Vigil are 

sufficient to overcome the state's interest in protecting this 

child witness. The law does not require futile acts, nor shall 

we. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 (1980). 

Mr. Vigil's remaining arguments concerning the confrontation 

issue, including assertions that the state court failed to make a 

finding of necessity and that the state trial court failed to find 

the victim was unavailable, are without merit. Prior to each use 

of the videotaped deposition, a separate hearing was held by the 

trial court for the sole purpose of determining whether the 

requisite showing of "necessity" was established. With an 

individualized assessment conducted at each hearing, this case is 

clearly distinguishable from Coy v. Iowa, which involved only a 

"generalized finding" and the underlying statute imposed a 

presumption of trauma. In this case, the videotaped deposition 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2249 Document: 01019311070 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 5 
was admitted in lieu of live testimony of the child victim 

pursuant to N.M.S.A. 1978 § 30-9-17 (Repl. Pamp. 1984) and 

N.M.S.A. 1978 Crim. P. Rule 5-504 (1988 Cum. Supp.). Rule 5-504 

requires "a showing that the child may be unable to testify 

without suffering unreasonable and unnecessary mental or emotional 

harm" prior to the taking of such a deposition. This finding was 

made at each hearing by the trial judge who was particularly wellsituated to view the demeanor of all witnesses and make a 

thoughtful and informed evaluation of the entire proceedings. 

While there may not be a clear consensus as to the degree of 

trauma which must be shown before a child witness can be deemed 

unavailable to testify, the majority of courts have held that 

showing a traumatic effect to the child is sufficient to render 

the child unavailable. See People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741, 

749 (Colo. 1989). We are in agreement with the courts so holding. 

Mr. Vigil next contends that as no "additional expert witness 

was called to corroborate the testimony of the state's 

psychologist" there is insufficient evidence to sustain the 

conviction. We are not persuaded by this argument. In order for 

habeas corpus relief to be granted by a federal court based on a 

state court evidentiary ruling, the rulings must "'render the 

trial so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a denial of federal 

constitutional rights.'" Hopkinson, 866 F.2d at 1197 (quoting 

Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, (lOth Cir. 1979), cert. 

denied, 444 u.s. 1047 (1980)). 

850 

It is clear and beyond dispute 

that the weight to be accorded the testimony of a witness rests 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2249 Document: 01019311070 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 6 
with the trial court. The Constitution does not require one 

expert witness to corroborate another expert witness, thus we do 

not find the court's ruling to constitute a denial of a right 

protected by the Constitution. 

Lastly, Mr. Vigil contends that he asked the state trial 

court to consider his ill health and to suspend his sentence 

rather than to incarcerate him. He argues that the decision to 

imprison him was clearly against logic. Counsel for Mr. Vigil has 

cited no law that would support such a holding. We find no merit 

to this contention. 

We grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis and, having 

considered the appeal, AFFIRM the decision of the district court. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-2249 Document: 01019311070 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 7