Opinion ID: 2543466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: motion for a new trial based on spectator's statements to m.l. at cramer's trial

Text: ¶ 8 At the beginning of Cramer's trial, the court granted Cramer's request under Utah Rule of Evidence 615, which provides, subject to exceptions, that [a]t the request of a party[,] the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses .... Pursuant to this ruling, the court also instructed the prospective witnesses, including M.L., [1] not to speak to anyone or let anyone approach them about the case. Accordingly, M.L. waited to testify outside the courtroom. ¶ 9 Susan Mineer, who was not a witness, attended the trial. In an unrelated case, Cramer pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving two of Mineer's sons. During breaks in Cramer's trial, Mineer spoke to M.L. outside the court's presence while he waited to testify against Cramer. ¶ 10 M.L. testified at trial that Cramer touched his front and back private parts, both over and under his clothing. When asked to describe how Cramer would touch M.L.'s front private part, M.L. testified that Cramer would grab it hard and ask me if it'd felt good [and] rub on it. When asked why he had not told Detective Huggard about Cramer's abuse in the first interview, M.L. explained that he had been scared he would get in trouble and that he revealed the abuse when his adoptive parents reassured him everything would be fine. ¶ 11 Cramer's attorney then cross-examined M.L. about the differences among his statements. M.L. admitted that when he testified in the preliminary hearing about Cramer touching M.L.'s back private part he did not mention that Cramer had pinched it. However, M.L. claimed that he had mentioned in the preliminary hearing that Cramer, when grabbing M.L.'s front private part, grabbed it hard and asked if it felt good. ¶ 12 The jury convicted Cramer on the two counts of aggravated sexual abuse. Thereafter, Cramer moved for a new trial, claiming that Mineer's statements to the child violated the court's exclusion order under rule 615 and that this violation prejudiced him by causing the child to substantially change his earlier statements regarding the crime. In support of this motion, Cramer submitted affidavits from two witnesses who attended the trial: his wife, Diane Cramer, and Jennifer Durham, who had known Cramer since the time he worked with her father years ago. ¶ 13 In response to Cramer's motion for a new trial, the court conducted a hearing. At this hearing, Cramer called Diane Cramer and Durham to testify. Diane Cramer testified that on the first day of trial Mineer came into the courtroom and stated she was talking to [M.L.], and she said [Cramer] had done this to her two boys and one of them was dead. Jennifer Durham testified that during breaks in Cramer's trial, Mineer rushed out of the courtroom to give M.L. and his family, who were waiting in another room, a word-for-word account of the other witnesses' testimony. Durham characterized Mineer's accounts as being accurate. On cross-examination, however, Durham conceded that she heard only bits and pieces of what Mineer said to M.L. and his family, and further conceded she could not recall specifically what was said. When questioned as to the number of times she saw Mineer conversing with M.L. and his family, Durham initially stated [m]ore than one time, then, when questioned further, stated, three, four [times], maybe, then, when pressed, stated, [p]robably at least once. ¶ 14 Following this testimony, Cramer argued that Mineer's contact with M.L violated rule 615 and prejudicially affected M.L.'s subsequent testimony, thus entitling him to a new trial. To this end, Cramer compared M.L's trial testimony with his statements at the two earlier interviews and at the preliminary hearing. Specifically, Cramer argued that M.L.'s statements became progressively more damaging to Cramer as follows: (1) in the first interview, conducted August 8, 1997, M.L. denied that Cramer had inappropriately touched him; (2) in the second interview, conducted on March 6, 1998, M.L. claimed that Cramer had inappropriately touched him; (3) at the preliminary hearing, conducted on August 13, 1998, M.L. testified that Cramer would rub and feel M.L.'s private parts; and (4) following the exchange with Mineer, M.L. testified for the first time at trial that Cramer had pinched his back private part and asked M.L. whether the touching felt good. Cramer characterized M.L.'s testimony at trial as completely and drastically different from M.L's earlier accounts and argued that Mineer's contact with M.L. was the source of the difference. Attempting to establish this causal link, Cramer argued that because Mineer did not explain to M.L. how her son died, it left [sic] the inference that Mr. Cramer['s earlier abuse] had something to do with [the death], and someone as young as [M.L.] would, as a result, have the impression . . . [that] if he doesn't do something about it Mr. Cramer will do the same to him. Cramer then suggested that what M.L. did about it was to give completely more inflammatory testimony at trial to help ensure a conviction. ¶ 15 After hearing arguments from the parties, the court rejected as speculative Cramer's contention that he was prejudiced by the effect of Mineer's statements on M.L.'s trial testimony: [T]he only evidence I heard today with regard to [Mineer's] statements from both Ms. Cramer and Ms. Durham involves Ms. Mineer's discussion with [M.L.] about her boys, and Ms. Durham's belief that there was word-for-word parts of the trial, none of which she was able to identify. Those are the only things I can see that have any potential for impropriety.... [Mineer is] not barred from expressing her opinions, and I don't have any reason to believe that would have affected the outcome of the trial. With regard to anything [Mineer] said to [M.L.], what was heard was so incomplete that I can view it only as speculation, . . . or that her speaking would have any effect on [M.L.]. [Durham] heard so little about what she might have said and it's so incomplete that I cannot make the nexus necessary under State v. McGrath, [749 P.2d 631, 634 (Utah 1988),] which requires that the defendant bear the burden to demonstrate that he has been prejudiced to the extent that a mistrial is warranted. I simply cannot make that connection. It's simply not nearly close enough.... The court further noted that defense counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine M.L. about the alleged discrepancies in his testimony, and did so in great length and vigorously. Accordingly, the court rejected Cramer's motion for a new trial. ¶ 16 Cramer appeals both the trial court's pretrial ruling denying him access to M.L.'s privileged medical records and its posttrial denial of his motion for a new trial.