Court Opinion

ID: 9539845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:11:00.646018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:24.132211
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice,
dissenting.
“As we have stressed on more than one occasion, the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 684 (1986).
It is this statement by the United States Supreme Court that causes me to dissent to the majority opinion in this case. The statement embodies the legitimate caveat to the laymen’s perception that any technical error occurring at trial is per se reversible. In Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 (1967), the Court rejected the argument that all constitutional errors, regardless of their nature or the circumstances of the case, require reversal of a judgment of conviction. The Court concluded that there are “some constitutional errors which in the setting of a particular case are so unimportant and insignificant that they may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 22, 87 S.Ct. at 827, 17 L.Ed.2d at 709. I believe this is just such a case.
Conceding the existence here of an error of constitutional magnitude, I believe Chapman instructs that the inquiry does not end with that concession. The question that must next be addressed in the appellate analysis, and a question that the majority essentially ignores, is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction,” or whether the error can be declared to be “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., 386 U.S. at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827, 17 L.Ed.2d at 710 (citing Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 230, 11 L.Ed.2d 171, 173 (1963)). This question is asked keeping in mind that errors affecting the substantial rights of a party will not be considered harmless. Id. “[Tjhere are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” Id. See e.g. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733 (1963) (right to counsel); Payne v. State of Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 78 S.Ct. 844, 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958) (coerced confession); and Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) (impartial judge). Yet the constitutional right infringed upon in this case is not in the same class as those considered in Gideon, Payne, and Turney. The right granted by the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against oneself does not invite such stringent per se reversible error protections. The right “is not absolute and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” Chambers v. State of Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 309 (1973).
*62“Since Chapman, the Court has made clear that it is the duty of the reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 508-09, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1980, 76 L.Ed.2d 96, 106 (1983) (finding harmless beyond a reasonable doubt prosecution’s improper comment on defendant’s silence). In Busby v. Holt, 771 F.2d 1461 (11th Cir.1985), where the prosecution called a witness that it knew would exercise his privilege not to testify, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction, listing several factors to be considered in the analysis of harmless error when applying the Naniet standard. Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179, 83 S.Ct. 1151, 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963). The factors include:
(1) the prosecutor’s intent in calling the witness; (2) the number of questions asked that elicit an assertion of the privilege; (3) whether the adverse inferences drawn from the assertion of the privilege relate to central issues or collateral matters; (4) whether the inference is the only evidence or is merely cumulative of other evidence; (5) whether the witness is closely associated with the accused; (6) whether defense counsel objects; (7) whether the prosecutor attempts to draw adverse inferences from the witness’ refusal to testify in his closing argument; (8) whether defense counsel has relied on the assertion of the privilege; and (9) whether the trial judge gives a curative instruction.
Busby, 771 F.2d at 1468-69. The United States Supreme Court noted a similar list of factors to consider in the harmless error analysis including the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony is cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d at 686-87.
With these factors in mind, my close reading of the present record reveals a case where the harmless error rule should have been applied to affirm appellants’ convictions. Mr. Young’s testimony fingering both Knox and Jones satisfies me that the prosecution's case achieved critical mass for the jury to convict appellants without the majority’s supposed “transference of an inference” from Keeler’s and Haefner’s invocations of the privilege. Before Keeler and Haefner were called to the witness stand, the State had presented several witnesses whose testimony related to Keeler’s company’s unusual business practices. Ray Young, the contract killer, testified after they were called that Knox told him that Keeler’s company was being blackmailed; that Knox hired him to kill the alleged blackmailer Vigil; that Jones picked him up in the airport and took him to the house where Vigil would be and gave him the gun to be used. Other testimony established that Haefner owned the gun. There was also testimony identifying Jones as the person who purchased Young’s airplane ticket. After Keeler and Haefner were called, the court properly gave a cautionary instruction to the jury advising it that it should not draw any adverse inferences of appellants’ guilt from the witnesses’ invocation of the privilege.
To my satisfaction, the jury could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox and Jones conspired to kill Vigil from the evidence received regardless of the calling of Haefner and Keeler. Moreover, any prejudice created by their being called was avoided by the giving of the cautionary instruction. Prime v. State, 767 P.2d 149, 152 (Wyo.1989) (citing Labbe v. Berman, 621 F.2d 26 (1st Cir.1980) and United States v. Watson, 591 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.1979) cert. denied 441 U.S. 965, 99 S.Ct. 2414, 60 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1979)). The calling of Keeler and Haefner and their subsequent invocations of the Fifth Amendment privilege were, at most, cumulative evidence of appellants’ guilt already firmly established by other competent evidence. Being cumulative, its introduction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and should not be used here to reverse an *63otherwise valid conviction. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d at 686.
It is also significant to note that the prosecution did not make any further use of the witnesses’ invocations of the privilege, unlike the situation in Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79 (Wyo.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982). There, the prosecutor, although not using the witness’ invocation of the privilege improperly, told the jury in closing “You saw him [the witness]. You at least got to look at him.” Hopkinson, 632 P.2d at 144. Hopkinson was a case of first impression in this state and recognized Namet as the “lodestar” on this issue. Hopkinson, 632 P.2d at 142. Hopkinson was faithful to Namet, acknowledging that “each case should be analyzed on the basis of its own facts.” Hopkinson, 632 P.2d at 144. In Hopkinson, this court found no error when the prosecutor called a witness in the presence of the jury who he knew would take the Fifth Amendment. Curiously, the court did not overturn Hopkin-son’s conviction on facts that were clearly more egregious than the facts here with appellants. In Hopkinson the prosecutor refused, as a tactical maneuver, to reveal in advance what questions he intended to ask of the witness, who, based on prior testimony of other witnesses, was established as a central character in the case; consequently, the witness’ attorney indicated in chambers that his client would probably invoke the Fifth since he .did not know what the questions would be. Id. at 141. On appeal this court treated the case as one in which the prosecutor knew the witness would refuse to answer, yet it found no error. The court based its holding on the importance of permitting the prosecution to call the witness “to demonstrate that it was presenting all the relevant evidence at its disposal. Otherwise the defense could have argued that the State’s failure to produce [the witness] meant that no corroboration for its theory would have been forthcoming from his testimony.” Id. at 144. The similarity of Hopkinson to the present case is striking. Here, the state’s theory was that Keeler and his company were being blackmailed by the victim Vigil due to some allegedly illegal business practices. The state produced much evidence relating to the company’s illegal business practices; coupled with Young’s testimony as to his understanding of the blackmailing, Keeler and Haefner were identified as central characters in the conspiracy to kill Vigil.
In light of the state’s theory of the case, the majority’s decision prohibiting the calling of Keeler and Haefner effectively ties the hands of the prosecutor, a tying which this court in Hopkinson would not permit. In a situation such as the one presented here, where the prosecution agreed to call the witnesses outside the presence of the jury to ascertain whether they would invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, but the defense refused to refrain from commenting in closing on the state’s failure to present these witnesses to the jury, an almost insurmountable dilemma is created; the prosecution must decide between causing reversible error by calling the witnesses in the presence of the jury, as the majority posits, or not being able to prove its case against the accused because it appears as if it cannot produce witnesses important to its theory of the case. If this is the conclusion the majority wishes to submit, and it appears that it is, then realistically very few cases involving co-defendants or co-conspirators could ever be proven by the state. I do not think this is the result the majority wishes to create. See State v. Cota, 102 Ariz. 416, 432 P.2d 428 (1967) (cited in Hopkinson, 632 P.2d at 144) (a case where a witness was called whom the prosecution, prior to calling him, had repeatedly referred to as a co-perpetrator of the underlying crime. Finding no error, the Arizona Supreme Court stated “[f]or the state to have presented its theory without calling [the witness] would have meant leaving an obvious step out of its argument. Then the defense could have argued that the state’s failure to produce the alleged accomplice meant that no corroboration for its theory would have come from such testimony. United States v. Gernie [2nd Cir.1958, 252 F.2d 664]. * * * [T]he state had the right to show that it was *64presenting all the relevant evidence at its disposal in order to prove its theory of the case/'). Cota, 102 Ariz. at 421, 432 P.2d at 433. If the majority wishes to create such an insurmountable obstacle, then it should create a similar obstacle for the defense in situations such as this by prohibiting it from commenting on the state’s inability to produce witnesses who, outside the jury’s presence, invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. Because I do not believe the majority will create such an obstacle to the defense, it should in all fairness not create one for the prosecution.
This court has consistently followed its holding in Hopkinson and that of Namet, and has not found error, let alone reversible error, in Haselhuhn v. State, 727 P.2d 280 (Wyo.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1098, 107 S.Ct. 1321, 94 L.Ed.2d 174 (1987) and Prime v. State, 767 P.2d 149 (Wyo.1989), published five months ago. In Haselhuhn, the defendant’s co-defendant Prime was subpoenaed to be a witness at Haselhuhn’s trial. Four days before the trial, Prime’s attorney notified the court that Prime would invoke the Fifth Amendment as to all questions asked. In accordance with the practice of the court, all witnesses were sworn at the beginning of trial. It was later observed that Prime had not been sworn and the judge directed that the oath be read to him. Although not yet called to testify at that time, Prime indicated that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself and would not testify at trial. Haselhuhn asked for a mistrial but did not request a limiting instruction. Haselhuhn, 727 P.2d at 283.
On appeal, Haselhuhn argued that his constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses against him came into play when Prime asserted his intention not to testify if called. He stated that Prime’s invocation constituted testimonial conduct. In affirming Haselhuhn’s conviction, this court placed emphasis on Prime’s not actually being called to testify. We stated that
“[t]he right of confrontation which is inherent to any fair trial involves cross-examination with respect to testimony that a witness has given. It does not, however, extend to a right to cross-examine a witness who is not called to testify with respect to conduct such as that which occurred in this case. Nothing material to the issues would have been elicited in such cross-examination and the possibility of harm to Haselhuhn would be great indeed.”
Haselhuhn, 727 P.2d at 286. We further noted that “[wjhile such incidents should be avoided in the trial of a case, this occurrence is not a ground for reversal.” Haselhuhn, 727 P.2d at 286-87 (citing Hopkinson, 632 P.2d 79).
The inverse occurred in Prime, 767 P.2d 149. At Prime’s trial, evidence was elicited incriminating Haselhuhn in the crime with which Prime was charged. During the course of the trial the prosecution called Haselhuhn as an adverse witness. Having not been sworn, Haselhuhn indicated that he would not be sworn and would not testify; the trial court found him in contempt. Prime moved for a mistrial, which was denied, and the court cautioned the jury that its finding Haselhuhn in contempt was not to have any bearing on the innocence or guilt of Prime. Id. at 152. This court found no error, citing Haselhuhn as authority for the proposition that while “such incidents should be avoided in the trial of a case” by making the record outside the presence of the jury, “what occurred is not a ground for reversal because, in the context of the trial, this event did not prejudice Prime.” Prime, 767 P.2d at 152.
In the wake of these two recent cases, the majority’s decision in the present cases is unfounded. Its distinction between Prime, Haselhuhn and this case, turning on the time of presentation at trial of the invoking witnesses and whether they were sworn as witnesses, is an illogical distinction in light of the presumed concerns to be addressed in prohibiting a prosecutor from calling such witnesses. The supposed adverse inferences to be drawn by a jury from a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment are just as great at the beginning of a trial, as in Haselhuhn, as they are in the middle, as here, as in Hopkin-son, and as in Prime. I see no reason why this case should be treated any differently *65from Prime, Haselhuhn and Hopkinson. In light of those cases where no error was found, error should not be found in this case. If the majority wishes to create a bright line rule of reversible error any time a prosecutor calls a witness who he knows will claim his privilege not to testify, then it should do so instead of trying to make distinctions between this and the other cases addressing this issue when realistically there are not any true distinctions to be made. Knox and Jones received a fair trial as contemplated by the Van Ars-dall court. I would affirm.