Gruwell v. State
2011 WY 67
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Gruwell traveled to Gillette for his nephew's graduation and interacted with A.H., age 5, who played on Gruwell's computer.
- A.H. told her mother Gruwell exposed his penis and asked her to touch it.
- A.H.'s parents reported the incident to DCI; Gruwell gave two interviews and admitted he asked A.H. to touch his penis.
- Gruwell was charged with sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree; a Criminal Case Management Order set trial for December 7, 2009, with witness disclosure deadlines.
- Gruwell identified Dr. Denison as an expert to testify to his stability and lack of sexual-deviant indicators; the State objected to the scope and Dr. Denison's testimony was limited by the court.
- Before trial, the court held competency proceedings for A.H.; the court determined A.H. was competent to testify and denied a taint hearing regarding her interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Dr. Fukutaki testimony was proper? | Gruwell preserved right to compulsory process; late notice prejudicial. | Late notice prevented effective cross-examination and testing of expert. | No abuse; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Was A.H. competent to testify? | Age should not alone determine competency. | Court should consider all five factors. | A.H. competent; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did the trial court err in limiting Dr. Denison’s testimony to general characteristics? | Testimony could relate to defendant’s lack of sexual-deviant traits. | Such testimony is character evidence and could open door to rebuttal. | No abuse; testimony properly limited as character evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (factors balancing right to compulsory process against interests in fair trial)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (discovery and fair process goals underly compulsory process)
- Lawson v. State, 994 P.2d 943 (Wy. 2000) (adopting Taylor factors for witness disclosure decisions)
- Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wy. 2003) (reversal for exclusion of witnesses when Taylor factors ignored)
- State v. Lanam, 459 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 1990) (competency tests not require questioning on case specifics)