Opinion ID: 1386258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: What the Record and Totality of Procedures Established

Text: The majority, in present decision, converts what was confused and confessed error into a non-argued and non-briefed conclusion to disregard the error. First, in the face of the specific ruling of the trial court that Donna Engberg would not testify, the defense thereafter had to again call her to the stand to be protected from something in the nature of waived error so that the trial court would make the same ruling. This contention belies recognition that the federal rules and succeeding Wyoming rules now in effect for more than a quarter of a century were intended to eliminate this kind of needless regurgitation in pointless process and procedure. See W.R.C.P. 1. Additionally, trial counsel should have been able to rely on the trial court's statement that Donna Engberg has used her privilege and believe that the trial court meant what was said; that the issue was decided as repeated by the trial court in answer to the State's objection to the offer of proof and hearsay introduction. Denial to Engberg of his wife's testimony was disastrous as the case developed from opening statement into other testimony intimating his involvement. In basic terms, the denial to Engberg of any testimony from his wife contravenes the posture of Washington v. State of Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967), defining the right of the accused defendant to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his behalf. See Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10. The federal approach which misdirected the trial court started with Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958), holding modified sub nom. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980), where conviction was reversed after the government used defendant's wife as a witness over his privilege objection based on a common law premise and construction. Justice Stewart, in concurrence, contended that the privilege should be that of the witness and not of the accused and said that [u]nder such a rule the defendant in a criminal case could not prevent his wife from testifying against him, but she could not be compelled to do so. Id. 358 U.S. at 82, 79 S.Ct. at 141. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which did not apparently like its reversal in Hawkins, sent Trammel to the United States Supreme Court by denial of error in a co-conspirator spouse case where immunity was granted to the wife and she then elected, pursuant to her immunity, to testify over the husband's claimed privilege objection. Substantively, the common law evaluation was pursued. The various judicial utterances on the matter of the exercise of the privilege establish that the privilege belongs to the party spouse against whom the other is offered as a witness; however, it is firmly established that the privilege also belongs to the witness spouse. United States v. Trammel, 583 F.2d 1166, 1169 (10th Cir.1978), cert. granted 440 U.S. 934, 99 S.Ct. 1277, 59 L.Ed.2d 492 (1979), aff'd 445 U.S. 40, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980) (emphasis in original). The United States Supreme Court authenticates its decision for federal law within historical perspective, changed mores, and review of the common law as adverse to limited testimony for the non-statutory purposes of federal rules of evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the existing rule should be modified so that the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying. Trammel, 445 U.S. at 53, 100 S.Ct. at 914. No principle or concept was utilized in decision which applied to state rules of evidence or specific state statutes on privilege. See Evans, 287 S.E.2d 922. Also not considered was the exercise of the privilege by the witness-spouse when the accused in seeking her testimony, specifically withdrew any privilege. [19] See United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3rd Cir.1976), where the activities of the prosecution convinced the witness as defendant's girlfriend to take the fifth amendment rather than testify in favor of defendant as a denial of the constitutional right which affords the opportunity to call a defense witness. See likewise United States v. Hammond, 598 F.2d 1008, reh'g 605 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.1979) and United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir.1973). In this case, we consider and apply an explicit Wyoming statute and not an abstract and attacked sentimental relic or reasoned historical principle. Since the Wyoming privilege is not the provence of the federal judicial system, neither is it the right of the Wyoming courts to ignore what the legislature has provided as an established standard which has now existed for most of a century. VerMeulen, 438 N.W.2d 36. In the crucible of this case from opinion statement to appearance of this witness before the jury as the State's last witness, communicated prejudice from denied availability is undeniable. Whatever the testimony might have been, Engberg clearly expected it to be preferable to whatever the police officer from Las Vegas would say Donna Engberg said when she filed the January complaint against her husband. To conclude to the contrary directly violates the constitutional rights of the defendant to present relevant testimony addressed by Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987). See also Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 109 S.Ct. 480, 102 L.Ed.2d 513 (1988); Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798, reh'g denied 485 U.S. 983, 108 S.Ct. 1283, 99 L.Ed.2d 494 (1988); and Washington, 388 U.S. 14. We then have a further and even more serious defect, constitutional in nature, created by the majority's decision in justification of the denial to the accused of desired testimony of his wife. The denial of Engberg's access to the testimony denies a right to adequately defend and forecloses an interest protected by both state and federal constitutions (Sixth Amendment). Exculpatory testimony desired for use by Engberg was rejected by this decision. The right to defend including introduction of available material testimony has been addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Rock, further considered in Olden and Taylor and is controlling and decisive. Clearly, on this simple yet direct constitutional basis, Engberg's conviction resulted from his denial of Sixth Amendment rights to defend. Reversal is, as a result, constitutionally required.