State v. Goins
370 P.3d 942
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- In July 2013 Goins confronted a homeless man (Witness) about a stolen phone; later at Pioneer Park he bit off Victim’s earlobe and stabbed Victim. Goins was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and misdemeanor weapon-related conduct against Witness.
- At the preliminary hearing Witness and Victim appeared with a pastor who agreed to relay trial notices to them; the prosecutor relied on the pastor to maintain contact.
- Weeks before trial the pastor informed the prosecutor that Witness had been jailed and then released and had fallen out with Victim; thereafter neither Victim nor the pastor could locate Witness and he ceased appearing in known haunts.
- On the eve of trial the prosecutor checked the jail (Witness was not incarcerated) and otherwise was unable to locate Witness; the prosecutor moved to declare Witness unavailable and to admit Witness’s preliminary hearing testimony under the prior-testimony hearsay exception (Utah R. Evid. 804).
- The trial court found Witness unavailable, admitted the preliminary-hearing testimony, and the jury convicted Goins of aggravated assault and threatening with a dangerous weapon. Goins appealed, arguing the unavailability finding and admission of prior testimony were erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Goins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Witness was "unavailable" under Utah R. Evid. 804(a)(5) | State: made reasonable, good-faith efforts (pastor notice, police checks, jail inquiries) and could not locate Witness | Goins: prosecution did not do enough to locate or serve Witness; pastor testimony about service wasn’t pursued | Court: No abuse of discretion—efforts were reasonable under the circumstances and Goins had acquiesced to the pastor method of contact |
| Whether preliminary-hearing testimony was admissible under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(1) (prior testimony) | State: Witness’s prior testimony was given at a hearing and Goins had the opportunity to cross-examine there | Goins: defense counsel’s motive/effort at the preliminary hearing differed from trial, so opportunity/motive to develop testimony was not "similar" | Court: Admissible—preliminary hearing is a qualifying hearing and opportunity to cross-examine satisfies rule and Confrontation Clause; motive is sufficiently similar per Utah precedent |
| Whether admission implicated the Confrontation Clause | State: prior opportunity to cross-examine at preliminary hearing satisfies constitutional confrontation | Goins: preliminary hearing cross-examination is less probing and therefore inadequate | Held: No Confrontation Clause violation—Crawford and Green support admission when prior cross-examination occurred |
| Harmlessness to other charges | State: Witness’s testimony related only to the charge involving Witness | Goins: (implicitly) admission could taint convictions | Held: Any error (none found) would be harmless as to the assault conviction because Witness did not testify to that act |
Key Cases Cited
- Menzies v. State, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994) (constitutional unavailability requires reasonable efforts and practical impossibility of production)
- Poe v. Turner, 490 F.2d 329 (10th Cir. 1974) (a good-faith search need not pursue every nebulous lead)
- Brown v. Harry Heathman, Inc., 744 P.2d 1016 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (no requirement to attempt patently futile service when location is unknown)
- State v. Drawn, 791 P.2d 890 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (prosecution’s repeated subpoenas, inquiries, and searches satisfied unavailability requirements)
- State v. Chapman, 655 P.2d 1119 (Utah 1982) (insufficient, cursory efforts to locate a witness do not establish unavailability)
- California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) (preliminary hearing testimony may satisfy confrontation requirements when witness is unavailable)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements of absent witnesses are admissible only if unavailable and the defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- State v. Brooks, 638 P.2d 537 (Utah 1981) (defense counsel’s motive at preliminary hearing is sufficiently similar to trial for purposes of prior-testimony admissibility)