State v. McNeil
2013 UT App 134
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Roland McNeil was convicted of aggravated assault after a jury trial.
- Quentin, McNeil’s son, admitted involvement but later recanted, admitting to acting with his father’s alleged direction.
- Detective testified at trial about telephone records showing calls between McNeil and Quentin around the time of the crime; the detective testified at a preliminary hearing prior to trial and his testimony was read into the trial record because the detective had died.
- Allen, the victim, was attacked; he did not recognize his assailant initially, though he learned later of McNeil’s and Quentin’s possible involvement.
- Allen’s daughter’s statement to Allen, “If you don’t know me by now, you never will,” was admitted during trial and characterized as hearsay by McNeil.
- Crandall, the prosecutor in Quentin’s case, testified about an unfulfilled promise to write a letter to the Board of Pardons, which Quentin claimed did not occur; the letter’s existence was disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearsay and Confrontation—telephone-records evidence | McNeil argues the detective’s read-in testimony about telephone records violated hearsay, Confrontation, and best evidence rules. | McNeil argues the testimony was hearsay and unlawfully admitted under Crawford and business-record foundations were not properly met. | Invited error; no reversible abuse; no prejudice shown. |
| Daughter's statement about drugs (hearsay) | McNeil argues the daughter’s statement was hearsay and improperly admitted to prove drug involvement. | McNeil contends no proper hearsay exemption; the statement was probative of Allen’s state of mind. | Hearsay error; harmless in light of other strong evidence. |
| Crandall’s testimony about Quentin’s alleged truthfulness (608/-hearsay/confrontation) | McNeil argues Crandall’s testimony about Quentin not telling the truth violated hearsay, Confrontation, and Rule 608. | McNeil asserts improper admission for truthfulness purposes; argues plain error and ineffective assistance. | Assumed error but not prejudicial; no reversal. |
| Cumulative error | McNeil contends multiple errors cumulatively denied him a fair trial. | McNeil asserts no single error was reversible and cumulative impact should be considered. | Cumulative errors not sufficient to sustain reversal. |
| Preservation and invited error doctrine | McNeil claimed preserved and unpreserved errors together; argued plain error for some. | McNeil invited error by stipulating to non-hearsay and not preserving objections. | Many challenges were invited or not preserved; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay requires opportunity for cross-examination)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (classifies declarant’s testimony as testimonial with confrontation constraints)
- Matsamas v. State, 808 P.2d 1048 (Utah 1991) (harmless error/ prejudice standard in Utah plain-error review)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error test requires obviousness and harm)
- State v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (factors for evaluating prejudice from evidentiary error)
- State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d 200 (Utah 1987) (prejudice and corroboration considerations in hearsay rulings)
- State v. Valdez, 748 P.2d 1050 (Utah 1987) (prosecutorial emphasis and prejudice assessment in evidentiary errors)