Court Opinion

ID: 9629221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:39:23.456761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:04.161242
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Justice,
dissenting, with whom McCLINTOCK, Justice, joins.
I am of the opinion that, because of the way the motion-in-limine matter was handled, the defendant was deprived of an opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witness, Anneberg, resulting in a denial of due process of law as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 5, of the Wyoming Constitution. The lack of opportunity came about through no fault of defense counsel. In this case, an order of the court was extant which limited Dr. Anne-berg’s testimony to that allowable under § 7-ll-305(d), W.S.1977, which provides:
“. Such experts are not competent to testify as to the mental responsibility of the defendant; however, they may testify as to the validity of the procedures followed and the general scientific propositions stated by other witnesses.”
For purposes of this dissent, I will assume, arguendo, that the limine order was not properly entered in the first instance because Anneberg was an examining doctor and was, therefore, “competent.” Nevertheless, because of the order, defense counsel had a right to assume that the doctor would not be permitted to testify on the ultimate issue having to do with the mental responsibility of the defendant.
The prosecutor called Dr. Anneberg to the stand and, contrary to the restriction placed upon him by the court, asked if he agreed (with the defendant’s doctors) that

“the defendant lacked the substantial ability to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law,”

to which Dr. Anneberg responded,
“I disagree with that.”
*567This — in my judgment — was the answer to the ultimate question which the prosecutor had been directed not to ask. That is — his limitations under the order of the court prevented him from asking it. In the hearing on defendant’s motion to strike Anneberg’s questioned testimony and the motion for new trial, the judge agreed that this question and its consequent answer were prohibited by the limine order, but held the testimony not to be prejudicial.
To any concern that I have here, it is irrelevant that the order may have been improperly entered in the first place. It was an order of the court under which the case was being tried and all parties were bound by it. Not only were they bound by it, but they had a right to rely upon its effects, which included defense counsel’s right to take comfort in the belief that he did not have to prepare to cross-examine an expert witness upon a highly technical medical subject relating to the crucial issue of his client’s sanity.
The testimony of Dr. Anneberg was critical to the State’s case, of course, because all of the other expert testimony in the case was favorable to the defendant on the issue of sanity. The other doctors testified that Hayes lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Therefore, without Anneberg’s questioned testimony, the State would not have been able to get to the jury on the issue of sanity.1
When the Anneberg testimony came in, defense counsel asserted surprise2 — which is certainly understandable — and moved to strike the testimony and for a mistrial. These motions were denied — not because they were not well taken but because the judge finally decided that the testimony was not prejudicial. Counsel should have requested a continuance to prepare his cross-examination of this doctor — but no such request was made. In any event, I am of the opinion that because of the violation of the court’s order by the prosecution, the defendant was denied the opportunity for effective cross-examination. I say “effective” cross-examination advisedly. For a lawyer, without fault on his part, to be forced to confront a psychiatrist on the ultimate issue of his client’s sanity without preparation and after having been led by a court order to believe that it was unnecessary for him to prepare for such an experience, is to, in fact, deny his client the opportunity to fairly and effectively confront the witness. This, to me, is a denial of defendant’s due-process rights.
In Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the United States Supreme Court said:
“The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution ‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ This right is secured for defendants in state as well as federal criminal proceedings under Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). Confrontation means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically. ‘Our cases construing the [confrontation] clause hold that a primary interest secured by it is the right of cross-examination.’ Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1076, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). Professor Wigmore stated:
*568“ ‘The main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination. The opponent demands confrontation, not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross-examination, which cannot be had except by the direct and personal putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers.’ (Emphasis in original) 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1395, p. 123, (3d ed. 1940).” 415 U.S. at 316, 94 S.Ct. at 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d at 353.
In Holm v. State, Wyo., 404 P.2d 740, 744 (1965), we said:
“One of the most basic elements of due process is the right of each party to be apprised of all the evidence upon which an issue is to be decided, with the right to examine, explain or rebut such evidence. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists v. Nemitz, 21 N.J.Super. 18, 90 A.2d 740, 745; State v. Gordon, 225 N.C. 241, 34 S.E.2d 414, 416. And, the right to hear and controvert all evidence upon which a factual adjudication is to be made includes the right to hear and cross-examine witnesses. Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission v. Bratton, 177 Pa.Super. 598, 112 A.2d 422, 425; In re Buchman’s Estate, 123 Cal.App.2d 546, 267 P.2d 73, 84, 47 A.L.R.2d 291, Id., 132 Cal.App.2d 81, 281 P.2d 608, 53 A.L.R.2d 451, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 873, 76 S.Ct. 118, 100 L.Ed. 772.”
It might be argued by many — perhaps even most — that the defendant’s counsel was furnished the “opportunity” to cross-examine Anneberg as required by Davis v. Alaska, supra, and Holm v. State, supra— but I would not agree. He certainly was not given the opportunity to effectively cross-examine. Perhaps I have been a trial lawyer too long, but those years in the courtroom permit me to fantasize vividly the scene where defense counsel has not prepared himself to do adversary battle with the psychiatrist on the ultimate question of his client’s sanity because he relies upon the court’s order which says that there will be no such encounter. All of a sudden he is called upon to cross-examine in a highly technical field of law — without preparation. His resulting efforts will, by definition, be ineffective unless he is some sort of a skilled specialist in this isolated aspect of trial work — and the record does not reflect this to be the case.
The result of no preparation is ineffective cross-examination and — without criticizing counsel for defense in any way — it can be said that the cross-examination of Anne-berg in this case was truly ineffective. Lack of preparation has, therefore, resulted in defendant’s lack of opportunity to confront the hostile witness who has testified against him. It is, therefore a denial of the defendant’s right of due process of law.
In my opinion, the court erred when it held the questioned testimony not to be prejudicial.
In State v. Smith, 189 Wash. 422, 65 P.2d 1075 (1937), an assault and battery case, the prosecutor violated a court order to refrain from asking the defendant about his dishonorable discharge from the Marines and, even though counsel lodged no objection, the court held the violation to be prejudicial as a matter of law. The court said:
. . In propounding the question, counsel clearly violated the ruling of the court theretofore made. The question was highly prejudicial and of such a nature that the prejudice largely consists in the mere asking of the question. The fact that the question was not objected to is not controlling. It may well be that an objection to such a question, even though sustained, is more damaging to a defendant’s case than almost any answer could be. Neither, under the circumstances shown by this record, was a motion to strike the answer and instruct the jury to disregard the same necessary. In any event, in view of the deliberate disregard by counsel of the court’s ruling, prejudice must be presumed, and appellant’s motion for a new trial should have been granted.” 65 P.2d at 1078.
I would have held that the order in li-mine, with its subsequent violation, served *569as a conduit to set up the defendant in a manner which deprived him of his right to effective cross-examination, thereby structuring an error which the United States Supreme Court, in Davis v. Alaska, supra, where the opportunity to confront the witness was at issue, has described as
“ ‘. . . constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.’
I would have reversed and remanded.

. I give no credence whatever to a lay witness’ testimony on the highly technical medical question of a person’s sanity or the lack of it and, therefore, as a matter of law discredit all lay testimony on the subject.

. The record discloses the following partial argument of defense counsel:
“. . .1 think it’s highly prejudicial to the defendant because it is a statement made by the doctor to the ultimate conclusion without the proper ability to cross examine him without the availability of the written report where he states his findings in a concise writtin [sic] report so that a proper examination could be made from that. Furthermore, I think that it naturally came as a surprise to me in that we had agreed in advance that that would not come up and I was unprepared at that time to counteract the answering by Dr. Anneberg of the ultimate issue in the case, and for these reasons, I would move for a mistrial in the case.”