 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lancaster v. State3/28/2002
his considerable knife and bullet wounds are visible throughout the taping.
[ ] Prior to trial, the appellant filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence directed in part to this videotape. *fn3 The motion alleged that the videotaped statement was hearsay and that its introduction into evidence would violate W.R.E. 801(c). *fn4 The motion was set for hearing on May 3, 2000. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the videotape would not be offered as evidence by the State "absent rehabilitation or a prior consistent statement . . .."
[ ] Hanson testified at trial and was cross-examined by defense counsel. At the end of redirect examination, the State offered the videotape into evidence and asked that it be played for the jury. Defense counsel objected. After hearing arguments on the objection, and after viewing the videotape, the trial court overruled the appellant's objection and allowed the videotape to be played for the jury. At defense counsel's request, the trial court then gave the following limiting instruction:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the videotape statement of Mr. Hanson, which you just viewed, is offered to you and should be considered by you only for the limited purposes of evaluating the credibility of the declarant, Mr. Hanson. It should not be considered by you for any other purpose, and I'm specifically instructing you that it should not be considered directly as proof of the matters asserted within that tape.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] The standard for reviewing a trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence is well known. Such decisions are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Story v. State, 2001 WY 3, 9, 15 P.3d 1066, 1068 (Wyo. 2001); Blumhagen v. State, 11 P.3d 889, 892 (Wyo. 2000). Determining whether the trial court abused its discretion involves the consideration of whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Trujillo v. State, 2 P.3d 567, 571 (Wyo. 2000) (quoting Solis v. State, 981 P.2d 34, 36 (Wyo. 1999)).
[ ] A trial court's evidentiary rulings "'are entitled to considerable deference,'" and will not be reversed on appeal so long as "'there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court's ruling . . ..'" Robinson v. State, 11 P.3d 361, 367 (Wyo. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 980 (2001) (quoting Simmers v. State, 943 P.2d 1189, 1197 (Wyo. 1997)). The appellant bears the burden of proving an abuse of discretion. Trusky v. State, 7 P.3d 5, 11 (Wyo. 2000); Trujillo, 2 P.3d at 571 (quoting Solis, 981 P.2d at 36). Even where a trial objection has been made to the admission of evidence, error cannot be found unless "a substantial right of the party is affected . . .." W.R.E. 103(a)(1). These general rules apply to rulings on the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, 6, 24 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 2001); Robinson, 11 P.3d at 367. W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B)
[ ] Hearsay is inadmissible under W.R.E. 802, "except as provided by these rules . . .." In that regard, the Wyoming Rules of Evidence provide two types of exceptions whereby statements that might otherwise be excluded as hearsay may be admitted into evidence. First, W.R.E. 801(d) declares that certain prior statements by witnesses and certain admissions by a party opponent are "not hearsay." Second, W.R.E. 803 and 804 contain lists of "[h]earsay exceptions." W.R.E. 801(d) statements are admissible because they are "defined out" of the hearsay definition. W.R.E. 803 and 804 statements are admissible because, though they are hearsay, they have sufficient "guarantees of trustworthiness . . .." See W.R.E. 803
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|