Opinion ID: 2634905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise a hearsay objection to certain testimony by the victims' mother?

Text: [¶ 14] This argument is based upon the fact that Appellant's trial counsel did not object to the following exchange during Mother's direct testimony: Q. So you get in the car with [Boyfriend] to take him to his parents's [sic] house after the argument. How far did you and [Boyfriend] make it with respect to taking him to his parents's [sic] house? A. A few blocks. Q. Then what happened? A. [Boyfriend] said that I shouldn't leave the kids alone with [Appellant] because he's a rapist. (Emphasis added.) Appellant argues that trial counsel should have objected to the emphasized answer, on the ground that such was hearsay, and that the failure to do so constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶ 15] W.R.E. 801(c) defines hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In turn, W.R.E. 802 declares hearsay to be inadmissible, except as provided by court rules. The declarant in the instant situation was Boyfriend. Clearly, his statement to Mother was an out-of-court statement. To that extent, Appellant has met his burden of proving the first element of the hearsay definition. But Appellant has not shown that the statement was introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that being that Appellant is a rapist. Instead, the full context of the testimony shows that the statement was introduced to show why Mother almost immediately returned to the apartment, instead of taking Boyfriend to his parents' house: Q. So you get in the car with [Boyfriend] to take him to his parents's [sic] house after the argument. How far did you and [Boyfriend] make it with respect to taking him to his parents's [sic] house? A. A few blocks. Q. Then what happened? A. [Boyfriend] said that I shouldn't leave the kids alone with [Appellant] because he's a rapist. Q. What did you think when [Boyfriend] told you that [you] shouldn't leave the kids with the defendant because he's a rapist? A. I thought, because he was intoxicated, he was just making an excuse to stay home. Q. You thought that [Boyfriend] was making an excuse so he would go back home with you? A. Yeah. Q. And so thinking that he was making an excuse, what did you go ahead and do? A. I turned around. Q. Why? A. They're my children. Q. So you just did a U-turn and right back? A. Yeah. [¶ 16] An out-of-court statement introduced to show its effect upon the person hearing it is not hearsay. Kenyon v. State, 986 P.2d 849, 853 (Wyo.1999) (citing Armstrong v. State, 826 P.2d 1106, 1119 (Wyo.1992)). Perhaps that is why trial counsel did not object to this particular statement. Given the context of the statement, we surely cannot say that counsel's performance was deficient in that regard. Beyond that, even if we were to conclude that trial counsel should have objected to admission of the statement, we would not find ineffective assistance of counsel because Appellant was not prejudiced thereby. During his own direct testimony, Appellant stated that I just did ten years in the state penitentiary because of rape, and his attorney asked him if he believed he had learned anything from being sent to prison for second-degree sexual assault. Furthermore, a portion of the transcript from the change-of-plea hearing in that case was read to the jury for the limited purpose of proving knowledge, motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, or preparation with respect to the charges at issue. Thus the jury was well aware of Appellant's prior sexual assault conviction. Counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to the alleged hearsay statement.