Opinion ID: 2508267
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Victim's and Thunder Hawk's Prior Criminal Records

Text: [¶ 9] Holloman contends that by prohibiting him from making any reference to the past crimes committed by Johnson and Thunder Hawk, he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense. Mr. Holloman sought to introduce the criminal records of Mr. Johnson and Thunder Hawk to show that both had a propensity towards violence. This would serve as evidence that one or both of these men was the first aggressor and that Mr. Holloman responded in self-defense. By not being allowed to present such evidence, Mr. Holloman was prevented from effectively demonstrating to the jury that he acted in self defense. [¶ 10] Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and include determinations of the adequacy of foundation and relevancy, competency, materiality, and remoteness of the evidence. 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. Wilde v. State, 2003 WY 93, ¶ 13, 74 P.3d 699, 707, ¶ 13 (Wyo.2003); and see Edwards v. State, 973 P.2d 41, 45-47 (Wyo.1999). [¶ 11] Holloman asserts that we must evaluate this issue as a violation of due process of law. We are convinced that the standard of review recited above is the appropriate standard in these circumstances and decline to address the constitutional argument propounded in Holloman's brief. [¶ 12] We have recognized that there are circumstances where the character of the victim of a crime may be relevant, especially in those instances where the defendant contends that an assault or a homicide was justified because the victim was the first aggressor and was known to be of a violent character. Such evidence is not offered for the sake of proving the victim's bad character, but rather to explain defendant's motive and what he might have reasonably apprehended as to the danger he faced. See, e.g., Edwards, 973 P.2d at 45-47; Braley v. State, 741 P.2d 1061, 1067-69 (Wyo.1987); State v. Velsir, 61 Wyo. 476, 159 P.2d 371, 373-74 (1945) (principle recognized, but exclusion of such evidence not error where offer of proof inadequate); and Mortimore v. State, 24 Wyo. 452, 474-75, 161 P. 766, 772 (Wyo.1916). Although we will not discuss them in detail here, the authorities we will set out below explain that character evidence relating to the victim of a homicide, as well as other third parties present, may be admissible if the offered evidence is competent, relevant, material, foundation is adequate, and remoteness of the evidence does not counsel against its admission. [¶ 13] We decline to apply that general evidentiary principle here because Holloman's offer of proof with regard to all such evidence was inadequate. [4] The only proof offered was a laundry list of prior offenses for both men, without regard to such matters as the adequacy of foundation, relevancy, competency, materiality, or remoteness of the evidence. [¶ 14] With respect to Johnson, a notice of intent to introduce his prior violent criminal history was submitted for the trial court's consideration. It contained 13 paragraphs. Seven of those paragraphs listed arrests and charges that had either been dismissed, or the disposition of the crime was unknown. No details of the exact nature of any of those crimes was submitted for the district court's consideration (although they were categorized, e.g., as assault, robbery, and fighting). Two items related to what was apparently one event that occurred on April 13, 1989, in New Mexico. The crimes were aggravated assault and robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, and Johnson was convicted of both crimes. No details about those incidents were provided to the district court and the only proof proposed by the defense was to offer certified copies of judgments. The list also included a conviction for obstructing a police officer in Montana in 1996, but again no additional information was offered to show the relevancy of that offense. Johnson was convicted in Oregon, in 1980, of carrying a concealed weapon, but once again no details were made available for the district court's consideration. The twelfth item on the list was an assertion (according to Holloman, without more) that Johnson was a member of the Freight Train Riders of America, an organization of transient train riders reputed to be violent people. The thirteenth paragraph suggested that more items might be added to the list later, but none were. Holloman did not propose to have any witness testify to Johnson's reputation for violence, or as to specific acts of which the witness had personal knowledge. See W.R.E. 405. [5] [¶ 15] With respect to Thunder Hawk, Holloman offered a much shorter list that included 1975 convictions for robbery, assault, and failure to appear in California, fraudulent use of a credit card in 1978, third degree sexual assault in 1990, and providing false information in 1993. Holloman did not propose to have any witness testify to Thunder Hawk's reputation for violence or for truthfulness. [¶ 16] We need not discuss these asserted errors more dispositively because Holloman's offer of proof, as well as his proposed method of proof, simply did not require the district court to take any other action than that which it did take. The district court tentatively granted the State's liminal motion to prevent that evidence from coming before the jury, but did not prohibit Holloman from raising the issue again if the district court's legitimate concerns were assuaged by further development of the proposed proof. [6] Holloman was not denied the opportunity to develop this evidence; he simply failed to do so. See generally Person v. State, 2004 WY 149, ¶¶ 19-21, 100 P.3d 1270, ¶¶ 19-21 (Wyo.2004). Although our resolution of this issue does not call upon us to employ it here, for a more complete and scholarly discussion of the more subtle nuances of F.R.E. 404(a)(2) (and thus W.R.E. 404(a)(2) as well), see 1 Christopher B. Mueller and Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 103 (Character of Victim: Initial Proof and Rebuttal), at 566-73, § 104 (Character of Witness), at 573-74, and § 105 (Character as Element of Charge or Defense (Insanity and Other Issues)), at 574-81 (1994 2nd ed. and Supp.2004); and H.H. Henry, Annotation, Admissibility of Evidence as to Other's Character or Reputation for Turbulence on Question of Self-Defense by One Charged with Assault or Homicide, 1 A.L.R.3d 571 (1965 and Supp.2004) (With respect to Thunder Hawk see § 9, Evidence as to character of third persons.). [¶ 17] We hold that the district court's liminal ruling that the offered evidence was not admissible was not erroneous in these circumstances.