State v. Gray

• Citation: 129 Idaho 784,932 P.2d 907
• Decision Date: 02 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 21030,21030
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Appellant, v. William L. GRAY, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Idaho

Page 907

932 P.2d 907

129 Idaho 784

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Appellant, v. William L. GRAY, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Respondent.

No. 21030.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

Jan. 2, 1997.

Petition for Review Denied

March 19, 1997.

Weinpel, Woolf & Combo, Idaho Falls, and Grant & Newcomb, Laramie, WY, for appellant.

Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PERRY, Judge.

William L. Gray was found guilty by a jury of two counts of first degree murder, I.C. § 18-4003, and one count of first degree burglary, I.C. §§ 18-1401, -1403. On appeal, Gray alleges multiple errors by the district court and by his trial counsel and seeks reversal of his judgments of conviction. The state cross-appeals, claiming that the district court relied upon inappropriate factors in sentencing. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

In the early morning hours of July 24, 1989, Gray's wife, Betty Gray, and her friend, Reeda Roundy, were killed in Roundy's house in Idaho Falls. In 1992 Gray was indicted for two counts of first degree murder and one count of first degree burglary.

On May 11, 1993, Gray went to trial before a jury. The prosecution argued that Gray killed Betty because he was aware that she was having an affair. The prosecution further alleged that, to prevent his motive for her murder from being discovered, Gray had asked Betty not to discuss their impending divorce with their family and friends. The prosecution contended that Gray had purchased an International Travelall vehicle, which he registered in someone else's name, with the intent to avoid use of his usual vehicle and thereby conceal his presence at the scene of the crime. The prosecution attempted to prove that Gray drove the Travelall from the Grays' home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to the Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls on an evening when Betty was staying overnight with Roundy. Gray allegedly then rode a bicycle approximately three and a half miles to Roundy's house. The prosecution's theory continued that Gray killed both women and set the scene in the house to appear as though the killings were committed as part of a satanic ritual. After the killings, Gray then rode the bicycle back to the hospital.

The defense alleged that Gray was unaware at the time of Betty's death that she was having an affair. Gray contended that he could not have ridden a bicycle for seven miles due to his poor health. He also asserted that one of three other men associated Following trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on two counts of first degree murder and one count of first degree burglary, with each of the crimes being enhanced for the use of a firearm. Gray was sentenced to two determinate life sentences for first degree murder and ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of five years, for first degree burglary.

with the two victims was responsible for the murders.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Hearsay Statements

Gray filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude hearsay statements made by Betty regarding her husband, their marriage, their impending divorce and her affair. The district court granted Gray's motion in part and denied it in part.

The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit hearsay under one of the many exceptions to the general rule that hearsay is inadmissible. This Court will not overturn the exercise of that discretion absent a clear showing of abuse. State v. Zimmerman, 121 Idaho 971, 974, 829 P.2d 861, 864 (1992). See also Dept. of Health and Welfare v. Altman, 122 Idaho 1004, 1007, 842 P.2d 683, 686 (1992). When a trial court's discretionary decision in a criminal case is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600, 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989). In order to mandate a reversal, it must be shown that the objectionable evidence contributed to the verdict and thereby affected the substantial rights of the defendant. State v. Cliff, 116 Idaho 921, 924, 782 P.2d 44, 47 (Ct.App.1989).

1. Betty's statements

(a) I.R.E. 803(24) hearsay exception and Confrontation Clause

Among the statements reviewed by the district court prior to trial were three statements which the district court admitted pursuant to I.R.E. 803(24). ¹ Gray contends on appeal that the district court erred in admitting these statements and that their admission violated his rights pursuant to the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution.

The first inquiry must be whether the statements were hearsay, that is, whether they were out-of-court statements offered as an assertion of proof of the matters asserted therein. State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 700, 704, 889 P.2d 729, 733 (Ct.App.1994). See also Isaacson v. Obendorf, 99 Idaho 304, 309, 581 P.2d 350, 355 (1978). Hearsay is made generally inadmissible by I.R.E. 802. Gomez, 126 Idaho at 704, 889 P.2d at 733. However, if the statements were hearsay, the next inquiry is whether they were admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.

Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(24) creates an exception to the inadmissible hearsay rule for:

A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

The district court examined statements identified as C, F and G and determined that they were being offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein and were, therefore, hearsay. The district court further determined that each statement was relevant to a material fact, was more probative than other evidence available to the prosecution, and its admission would promote the interests of justice. The district court reviewed each statement, found circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and, through the use of reason and application of the appropriate legal standards, deemed the evidence admissible. See Hedger, 115 Idaho at 600, 768 P.2d at 1333. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding these statements admissible pursuant to I.R.E. 803(24).

Once a statement is determined to be hearsay, even if it is found to be admissible due to an exception to the hearsay rule, a criminal defendant's rights pursuant to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution must be addressed. In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the United States Supreme Court set forth an approach for determining when incriminating statements, admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, also meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. A statement of a declarant, who will not be a witness at trial, is admissible only if the prosecution establishes that the declarant is unavailable and if the statement bears adequate indicia of reliability. If the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, reliability can be inferred. If, however, the statement does not fit within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, the statement is presumed inadmissible, and that presumption can only be overcome by a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539.

Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(24) has been specifically addressed by the United States Supreme Court in relation to the Confrontation Clause. In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), the Supreme Court determined that I.R.E. 803(24) is not a well-rooted exception to the hearsay rule and that hearsay admitted pursuant to that section must be proven to have particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. The Supreme Court noted the spontaneity of the statement, the consistency of repetition, the mental state of the declarant and the lack of motive to fabricate as indicators of trustworthiness. Wright, 497 U.S. at 821-22, 110 S.Ct. at 3149-50. The Supreme Court further stated that these factors are not exclusive, and the courts have considerable leeway to consider other appropriate factors. Id. at 822, 110 S.Ct. at 3150. The trustworthiness must, however, be shown from the totality of the circumstances that surround the making of the statement. Id. at 819, 110 S.Ct. at 3148-49. The existence of corroborating evidence may indicate that any error in the admission of a statement was harmless, but is not an appropriate consideration in finding a statement was trustworthy. Id. at 823, 110 S.Ct. at 3150-51; Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).

In this case, the district court determined that the context in which the statements were made provided guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to assuage concerns regarding reliability and prevented a violation of the Confrontation Clause. See State v. Giles, 115 Idaho 984, 987, 772 P.2d 191, 194 (1989). The district court found that statement C was made spontaneously, was repeated to two individuals and was made without a motive for fabrication. The district court further determined that when Betty made statement F she did so spontaneously; she repeated the statement to two individuals; and she was apprehensive and nervous at the time that she made the statement. Finally, the district court found that statement G was made...