Opinion ID: 2508156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Victim's Presence at Taint Hearing

Text: [¶ 8] Prior to trial, Watters moved for a competency and a taint hearing pursuant to Larsen v. State, 686 P.2d 583 (Wyo.1984) and Alicea v. State, 13 P.3d 693 (Wyo.2000). The district court granted the motions and scheduled a combined competency/taint hearing for September 9, 2002. On September 6th, Watters filed a motion to continue the taint portion of the hearing stating that he had been unable to locate two police officers and serve them with subpoenas. Watters presented that motion orally to the district court at the commencement of the September 9th hearing. The district court ruled that it would proceed with the competency hearing and continue the taint part of the hearing to September 13th. The court stated, however, that any evidence or argument related to the question of taint could be presented during the competency hearing if a party desired. Neither party presented any evidence related to taint during the competency hearing. The district court concluded that TD was competent to testify subject to consideration of the evidence on how any taint may have affected her ability to testify truthfully at trial. [¶ 9] The taint hearing resumed on September 13th. At the outset, Watters complained that the victim, TD, was not present and that he needed her testimony. The district court noted that it did not want to reschedule the taint hearing again because the trial was set for the following Monday, September 16th. The court further noted that TD had been present in court for the competency hearing, and Watters had made no mention that he needed her testimony at the taint hearing: But my view of what was initially set by me was the competency portion of what I said I would hold as a joint hearing. I ordered that [TD] be here on the 9th [for the competency hearing]. She was here. She participated with my inquiry of her on the record. And after that, I was ready, willing, and able to undertake hearing on other evidence the defense may have. There was no mention of the need for her as a witness on that day, or we could have proceeded. I presume that in granting the defense motion for a continuance, that if they needed to have her here as a witness today, they needed to have her here by subpoena, by stipulation of [the prosecutor], by some other process. And I don't think I can continue the hearing any further, because we've got to start the trial up on Monday morning. And I don't even hear a request for continuance. I'm not sure what the request really is that I'm being asked to rule on. Watters requested a continuance at that point but the district court did not rule on the motion and proceeded with the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, Watters' counsel stated that he had no more evidence to produce. The court then ruled that there was no evidence showing that TD had been tainted. [¶ 10] Watters argues that the district court erred by not granting his motion to require the victim's presence at the taint hearing. He contends that the very nature of the hearing  to determine whether the victim's testimony was tainted by suggestive or coercive interview techniques or other improper influences  mandated the witness' presence. By denying Watters an opportunity to question TD, he insists that the district court could not make a determination of whether her testimony was tainted. Watters claims that the alleged error is sufficient to support reversal of his conviction and a remand for a new trial. [¶ 11] The remedy requested by Watters at the taint hearing was for a continuance. The grant or denial of a motion for continuance is a discretionary ruling. Clearwater v. State, 2 P.3d 548, 553 (Wyo.2000). We, therefore, review the trial court's ruling on [the defendant's] motion for continuance for abuse of discretion. The ultimate question in determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred is whether the trial court reasonably could have concluded as it did. Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998). Review of a court's discretionary ruling on a continuance motion is highly dependent upon individual facts and circumstances. Cardenas v. State, 811 P.2d 989, 994 (Wyo.1991). The party attacking the court's ruling bears the burden of establishing the abuse of discretion. Id. Sincock v. State, 2003 WY 115, ¶ 25, 76 P.3d 323, ¶ 25 (Wyo.2003). [¶ 12] At the commencement of the competency hearing, the district court had granted Watters' motion to continue the taint part of the hearing. However, the court explicitly informed the parties that if they could produce any evidence or argument related to the question of taint during the course of the competency hearing, they should do so. The victim was present at the competency hearing and was sworn in as a witness. Watters made no effort to question her regarding taint. It appears that Watters simply assumed that TD would be present when the taint hearing resumed four days later. Watters had the duty to ensure the presence at the hearing of any witnesses from whom he desired to take testimony. The burden of producing a witness for his defense rested with Watters. Montez v. State, 670 P.2d 694, 699 (Wyo.1983); see also Caton v. State, 709 P.2d 1260, 1266-67 fn. 7 (Wyo.1985). The taint hearing was held on a Friday. The trial was scheduled to begin on the following Monday. [4] Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Watters' motion for a continuance. [¶ 13] Further, Watters fails to explain in his brief how the district court's ruling prejudiced him. At trial, Watters admitted that he had a sexual relationship with TD and that they had engaged in intercourse at the group home on April 24, 2002. The issues in dispute during trial were whether the victim had the capacity to consent and whether Watters used a position of authority to force the victim to submit. Thus, the question of whether the victim's statements were tainted by suggestive or coercive interview techniques or some other improper influence was no longer at issue during the trial because Watters admitted the truth of those statements. Consequently, it is difficult to see how the court's ruling could have had any effect on the fairness of Watters' trial. Since Watters fails to even make an attempt at explaining how this ruling prejudiced his right to a fair trial, we need not consider his claim of error any further.