Opinion ID: 2587760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue Two: Whether Smith's due process right to a fair trial was violated when alleged victim DH testified while holding a teddy bear.

Text: [¶ 23] Smith claims that when fifteen-year-old victim DH testified while holding a teddy bear without any showing by the prosecutor that a compelling need existed for DH to hold the teddy bear, Smith's due process right to a fair trial was violated because DH's holding the teddy bear garnered improper sympathy from the jury. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 6; Belden v. State, 2003 WY 89, ¶ 50, 73 P.3d 1041, 1089 (Wyo.2003). Smith concedes that he made no objection to DH's holding the teddy bear, and the State correctly notes that we must review Smith's claim under the plain error standard of review. Person, 2004 WY 149, ¶ 31, 100 P.3d at 1285. [¶ 24] The State asserts Smith cannot show that the record clearly reveals that DH in fact held the teddy bear while testifying; even if DH held the teddy bear while testifying, Smith cannot show the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law prohibiting a witness's holding a teddy bear while testifying; and, even if DH held the teddy bear and a clear and unequivocal rule of law prohibited that, Smith cannot show material prejudice. [¶ 25] Smith candidly recognizes that in that part of the trial transcript covering DH's testimony, there is no indication that DH held a teddy bear while testifying. The only reference in the record to this having happened is found in the closing argument of Smith's counsel at a point when he is commenting on a jury instruction that the jury is not to be influenced by passion or pity: Pity is something that is easy to feel for the witnesses on the stand. Remember the teddy bear that [DH] clutched in her hand. Remember the Powerpuff Girls T-Shirt. They're trying to present an image which I submit just simply isn't true. Smith and the State disagree about whether this record reference establishes with clarity that DH actually held a teddy bear while testifying. The question is a close one, but we will agree with Smith that this reference establishes the fact with sufficient clarity for us to proceed to the second part of the plain error standard. [¶ 26] Smith correctly notes first that this Court has never had the occasion to decide whether, or under what circumstances, a witness may testify while holding a teddy bear. Smith next refers us to a handful of decisions from courts in other states in his effort to establish the existence of the clear and unequivocal rule that the use of a prop such as a teddy bear or doll is a due process violation absent a compelling reason for the testifying witness to need a prop. In State v. Palabay, 9 Haw.App. 414, 844 P.2d 1 (1992), a sexual assault case, during the twelve-year-old victim's direct testimony defense counsel objected to the victim's holding a teddy bear, arguing the state had made no showing that it was absolutely necessary for the victim's comfort that she hold a teddy bear while testifying. The trial court overruled the objection. Later, but still during the victim's direct testimony, defense counsel repeated the objection. This time the trial court sustained the objection. Id. at 5. On appeal of his conviction to the intermediate court of appeals, Palabay argued the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to sustain his first objection, thus violating his constitutional due process right to a fair trial. The intermediate appellate court agreed. Id. at 7. In addressing this issue, the intermediate court of appeals noted that the Hawaii Supreme Court had not had occasion to consider the issue. Id. at 6. The court then turned to State v. Cliff, 116 Idaho 921, 782 P.2d 44 (1989), and State v. Gevrez, 61 Ariz. 296, 148 P.2d 829 (1944), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Clark, 112 Ariz. 493, 543 P.2d 1122, 1125 (1975), to both of which Smith has also referred us. In Cliff, a sexual assault case, when the eight-year-old victim entered the courtroom to take the stand while holding a doll, defense counsel objected; the trial court held a hearing outside the jury's presence during which the victim's court-appointed guardian ad litem testified about the victim's unease when testifying and opined that the victim would be put at ease if allowed to hold the doll. The trial court ruled the victim could hold the doll while testifying. 782 P.2d at 46. On appeal of his conviction, Cliff argued the ruling violated his due process right to a fair trial. The intermediate court of appeals disagreed. It accepted the trial court's conclusions that the benefit of having coherent testimony from the witness outweighed any possible prejudice to Cliff, and the doll could have a calming effect on the witness. Id. at 47. The Idaho court noted that in cases in which young children are witnesses the court must strike a balance between the accused's fair trial right and the young witness's need for an unintimidating environment. Id. [¶ 27] In Gevrez, in which the accused was on trial for murdering his ex-wife, the accused's mother-in-law sat near the jury throughout the trial and wept bitterly on different occasions; also, the fifth-grade child of the accused and his deceased ex-wife testified while holding her deceased mother's doll. 148 P.2d at 832-33. On appeal of the accused's conviction, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed on three grounds: the sanity opinion of the state's expert witness rested on an improper basis, the mother-in-law's deportment during the trial was prejudicial to the accused, and it affirmatively appeared that the prosecution staged and prearranged the child witness's carrying the doll. Id. at 833. Interestingly, in its remarks about the carrying of the doll, the Arizona Supreme Court added: So, we have an instance of where a girl in the fifth grade carried her mother's doll in the trial of the case and the influence on the jury was not fair to the [accused], and it was a very strong appeal to the jury put forward by the prosecution, and while no error can be claimed by reason of it, yet it has the great tendency, as in the other matter just mentioned, to arouse the sympathy of the jury. Id. (emphasis added). [¶ 28] In its brief, the State analyzes Palabay, Cliff, and Gevrez and concludes, correctly, we think, that Smith's reliance on them for showing the establishment of a clear and unequivocal rule of law is misplaced. Neither Gevrez nor Cliff established such a rule, as a plain reading of these decisions clearly reveals. Palabay's reliance on those two decisions as authority for such a rule seems ill-considered and ill-advised; moreover, Palabay is the decision of an intermediate appellate court, not the state's highest court. [¶ 29] The State has also referred us to several other decisions on this issue which are worthy of note. In State v. Marquez, 124 N.M. 409, 951 P.2d 1070 (App.1997), a sexual assault case, trial defense counsel raised the issue of the twelve-year-old victim's testifying while holding a teddy bear. The state and the defense argued their respective positions; the trial judge reserved ruling until after opening statements, at which time the court held a hearing and both counsel and the court questioned the child. The court then ruled that the child could testify holding the teddy bear, explaining the child preferred it, the jury would not be prejudiced by its presence, and counsel could question the child about it. Id. at 1074. On appeal of the accused's conviction, the intermediate court of appeals affirmed, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to review the trial court's ruling because New Mexico's counterpart to W.R.E. 611(a) allows the trial court latitude in exercising reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, . . . and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. Id. at 1072. The appellate court held that the trial court properly balanced the teddy bear's prejudicial effect against its calming effect. Id. at 1074. To similar effect is State v. Hakimi, 124 Wash.App. 15, 98 P.3d 809, 811-12 (2004). [¶ 30] Having considered the authority offered by Smith and the State, we hold that Smith has failed to establish the existence of the clear and unequivocal rule of law for which he contends. Consequently, he has failed to show plain error on this issue.