David Labon Bush, Appellant (defendant) v. the State of Wyoming, Appellee (plaintiff) (Wyoming 2008)

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Bush's second-degree murder conviction, holding that the daughter's statements to treating professionals were admissible for diagnosis and treatment and did not violate confrontation rights because she testified and could be cross-examined. The court held that the seriously ill witness could testify by video teleconference, while the admission of his wife's cumulative video testimony was harmless error. It also upheld exclusion of speculative alternative-suspect evidence and rejected Bush's due-process challenge to the charging delay because he showed neither intentional tactical delay nor actual prejudice.

Holding

Admissibility of the daughter's statements under the medical-diagnosis-and-treatment hearsay exception. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the daughter's statements for their truth because the statements were made consistently with the counselor's and psychiatrist's treatment and diagnostic purposes, and both professionals relied on them in treating or diagnosing the child.

Confrontation right and the daughter's out-of-court statements. Admission of the daughter's out-of-court statements did not violate the Sixth Amendment because she appeared at trial, testified under oath, and was available for cross-examination, even though she testified that she could not remember the events.

Video testimony of Paul Martin. Allowing Paul Martin to testify by live video teleconference did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the procedure was necessary to protect him from further harm caused by his serious medical condition and the reliability of his testimony was otherwise assured.

Video testimony of Caroline Martin and harmlessness. The district court erred by allowing Caroline Martin to testify by video teleconference because the record did not establish that her travel was necessary to further an important public policy, but the error was harmless because her testimony was cumulative of Paul's testimony.

Exclusion of alternative-suspect evidence. The district court properly excluded the proposed evidence implicating Bush's stepbrother because most of it was speculative and lacked a direct nexus connecting him to the crime, while the proposed confession testimony was hearsay for which the defense failed to establish unavailability, trustworthiness, or admissibility under an exception.

Due process and precharging delay. The fifteen-and-one-half-year delay did not violate due process because Bush failed to prove both that the State intentionally delayed prosecution to obtain a tactical advantage and that the delay caused actual prejudice.

Summary

Holding

Cited by