Opinion ID: 2550903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Prior Testimony

Text: [¶ 8] We review issues concerning the admissibility of evidence as follows: Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court.... This Court will generally accede to the trial court's determination of the admissibility of evidence unless that court clearly abused its discretion. We have described the standard of an abuse of discretion as reaching the question of the reasonableness of the trial court's choice. Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria. It also means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court's determination. The burden is on the defendant to establish such abuse. Holloman v. State, 2005 WY 25, ¶ 10, 106 P.3d 879, 883 (Wyo.2005). [¶ 9] Mr. Farmer claims the district court abused its discretion by admitting the prior testimony of John Biddix. Prior testimony of a witness may be properly admitted if: (1) the witness is unavailable; (2) the former testimony was given by the witness while he was testifying under oath; and (3) the party against whom the testimony is offered had the opportunity and a similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination at the time of the former testimony. W.R.E. 804(b)(1); [1] Grable v. State, 649 P.2d 663, 671 (Wyo.1982); Rodriguez v. State, 711 P.2d 410, 413 (Wyo.1985). See also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68-69, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) and Vigil v. State, 2004 WY 110, ¶ 18, 98 P.3d 172, 177-79 (Wyo.2004) (recognizing that a defendant's constitutional right to confront a witness is not violated when the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had prior opportunity to cross examine the witness). Mr. Farmer does not dispute that Mr. Biddix testified as a witness under oath at his first trial. He claims the district court erred in admitting the testimony because the State failed to prove that Mr. Biddix was unavailable. He also asserts that he was denied an adequate opportunity to cross examine Mr. Biddix due to ineffective assistance of counsel in the prior trial. [¶ 10] A witness is unavailable if he [i]s absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. W.R.E. 804(a)(5). The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the witness is unavailable to testify at trial despite its good faith efforts to obtain his presence. Grable, 649 P.2d at 672. Mr. Farmer contends the State failed to establish that it used reasonable efforts to locate Mr. Biddix. [¶ 11] After reviewing the evidence presented by the State, the court determined that Mr. Biddix was unavailable. The court explained: In this case, and beginning in October, efforts were undertaken by the District Attorney[']s Office through Ms. Lynch to attempt to locate Mr. John Biddix. And she's testified as to those efforts that were made. It is obvious from the testimony that Mr. Biddix is not in Natrona County or in the immediate area; those efforts were exhausted. To suggest that she would be required to go to the Child Support Enforcement Division when a bench warrant was issued for Mr. Biddix and still active would be futile. I mean, if they knew where he was, he wouldn't have a bench warrant; he would have been arrested or appeared. In addition, going to Montana or further researching Montana, when Montana has an active NCIC warrant, would also be futile. Because if it was known where he existed in Montana or any information there, there wouldn't be an active NCIC warrant in Montana [for] extradition. But most importantly, here is a brother who's told Ms. Lynch that he is somewhere in Florida. He does not know where. He has absconded or conceal[ed] himself because of the existing warrants. And, obviously, there's nothing to indicate that Florida authorities had had any contact or interaction with him based upon the NCIC information. And, also, I believe there's a CAD information, as well. So, the best we know is, he's somewhere in Florida. Efforts have been made, before talking to his brother, to locate his brother which was some difficulty [sic]. But the question is: Were the efforts reasonable in light of the information and in light of the various warrants that clearly indicate, at least since November, that  I think the testimony is that in November of 2002 Mr. Biddix [had] apparently left the state. Given the fact that there are the existing warrants from Natrona, Mills, or the City of Casper, and the activity from Montana and the absence, after talking with various officers and individuals in Natrona County, he cannot be located. Reasonable efforts were made to locate him elsewhere. And there's no information to indicate where he is. So I believe based upon the testimony and based upon the case law, that reasonable efforts were made to locate Mr. Biddix and to obtain his presence in this case. While, [defense counsel], there may be a number of things you would suggest could have been done, the [question] is: Were the efforts taken reasonable in the light of the facts and circumstances as articulated by the Court. And I find that they were reasonable. And that pursuant to Wyoming case law and the Rules of [Evidence] 804(b)(1), Mr. John Biddix is an unavailable witness. Our review of the record supports the factual findings of the district court. [¶ 12] Janeice Lynch, the Victim Witness Director for the prosecutor's office, testified regarding her efforts to locate Mr. Biddix. Ms. Lynch initiated her efforts to serve subpoenas on prospective witnesses in mid October. In the course of performing her duties, she was told by several individuals that Mr. Biddix had left town. She checked with local law enforcement but received no helpful information regarding the current whereabouts of Mr. Biddix. She located Jack Biddix, who informed her that his brother, John, had left Casper in November 2002 and was in Florida. He did not provide a specific address or identify the city in which his brother was living. He told Ms. Lynch that his brother would not return to Wyoming because of active arrest warrants that were pending against him. Evidence was also introduced establishing the existence of several active warrants against Mr. Biddix from Wyoming and one from Montana. The warrants were issued in 2002 and 2003. One of the warrants related to the failure of Mr. Biddix to appear for an extradition hearing on the Montana charges. [¶ 13] Mr. Farmer contends that the efforts of the State to locate Mr. Biddix were insufficient. He faults the State for failing to contact the local child support enforcement office and law enforcement in Montana and Florida. He also suggests that additional inquiry should have been made with other relatives of Mr. Biddix. [¶ 14] The determination of whether a witness is unavailable is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court and we will not overturn its determination absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Grable, 649 P.2d at 672. [T]he lengths to which the prosecution is required to proceed ... is a question of reasonableness. Id. The prosecution is not required to engage in futile acts to procure a witness. Id. The evidence established that Mr. Biddix had been absent from Wyoming for approximately one year. The existence of active arrest warrants helped explain his absence and the difficulty in obtaining a current address for Mr. Biddix. The district court could properly conclude that the State acted reasonably in its efforts to locate Mr. Biddix. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that Mr. Biddix was unavailable to testify at Mr. Farmer's second trial. [¶ 15] Next, Mr. Farmer contends that he was denied an adequate opportunity to develop Mr. Biddix's testimony at the first trial. He acknowledges that he was represented by counsel who questioned Mr. Biddix. However, Mr. Farmer claims that the cross examination was inadequate. In support of his position, he points to the relatively few questions asked of Mr. Biddix by defense counsel. He also questions other aspects of defense counsel's performance in the first trial in an effort to bolster his claim. Mr. Farmer's complaints concerning defense counsel's performance at the first trial do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Whether to cross-examine and the extent of cross-examination are strategic decisions. The risk of excessive cross-examination is that the witness may reconcile inconsistencies, additional unfavorable testimony may be elicited, and ineffective efforts to attack credibility may in fact enhance the witness's testimony. Smith v. State, 959 P.2d 1193, 1198 (Wyo.1998). Speculation as to how the cross-examination could have been conducted differently does not meet the Strickland test for ineffective assistance. Barkell v. State, 2002 WY 153, ¶ 23, 55 P.3d 1239, 1244 (Wyo.2002). [¶ 16] Under the federal constitution, we need only be satisfied that Mr. Farmer had an opportunity for cross examination. Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S.Ct. 292, 294, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985). [T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish. Id. (Emphasis in original.) See also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 53, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (holding that the Confrontation Clause is satisfied so long as the defense is given wide latitude to confront witnesses, and that inquiry into counsel's effectiveness in cross-examination is not required); Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 73, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2543, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (holding that no inquiry into effectiveness is required). [¶ 17] We have previously applied a four-part test to determine whether prior testimony is admissible without offending the defendant's right of confrontation. Prior testimony is admissible when the prior testimony was given under oath, when it was given while the defendant was represented by counsel, when the defendant's counsel could and did cross-examine the witness, and when cross-examination which would be conducted at trial would not touch upon any new and significantly material line of inquiry. Rodriguez, 711 P.2d at 415. [¶ 18] It is undisputed that the first three elements of the test were met. Mr. Farmer claims, however, that the absence of Mr. Biddix from trial deprived him of the opportunity to pursue a new and significantly material line of inquiry. Mr. Farmer alleges that he was prevented from exploring inconsistencies in the testimony of John and Jack Biddix. [2] We are satisfied that such examination does not constitute a new material line of inquiry. Mr. Farmer was presented with an adequate opportunity to explore John Biddix's recollection of events during the first trial. He was able to comment upon the discrepancies in testimony of the Biddix brothers in closing argument at the second trial. We find that the prior testimony of John Biddix meets our four-part test and find no abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary ruling that such testimony was admissible.