United States v. Frost
684 F.3d 963
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Frost was convicted of raping a 17-year-old on the Northern Ute Reservation and sentenced to 200 months.
- Appellant challenged admission of hearsay by Bridget W., Medina, Steinhage, Murison, and Wallace, arguing it violated FRE 802.
- Victim A.W. testified consistently about the rape; defense highlighted inconsistencies.
- Witnesses recounted A.W.’s statements made shortly after the incident, including to police, nurses, and an FBI agent.
- Frost argued error was plain and affected substantial rights and fairness, warranting reversal.
- District court denied reversal; the panel affirmed, addressing allocution during sentencing separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of hearsay was plain error | Frost contends the witnesses’ accounts were hearsay | The district court properly admitted under excited utterance/medical exceptions | No plain error; admission not clearly prejudicial |
| Whether Officer Medina’s and Steinhage’s testimony was admissible | Testimony was hearsay under Rule 802 | Excited utterance exception applied or did not plainly error | Not plain error; admissible under excited utterance or harmless under review |
| Whether Nurse Murison’s testimony violated hearsay rules | Some statements should have been excluded | Most statements fit medical-diagnosis/treatment exception; others harmless | Not reversible error; medical-driend supporting rationale insufficient for plain error |
| Whether Agent Wallace’s testimony deprived Frost of fair allocution | Wallace’s testimony was prejudicial and undermined allocution | Testimony cumulative and defense highlighted inconsistencies; no due-process harm | No reversible plain error; allocution rights satisfied under totality of proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hinson, 585 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard applied to evidentiary issues)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (establishes plain-error framework)
- United States v. Schene, 543 F.3d 627 (10th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard guidance)
- United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2012) (discusses plain-error and trial objections)
- Landeros-Lopez, 615 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2010) (allocution error framework; remand factors)
- Mendoza-Lopez, 669 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2012) (allocution fairness under plain error; substantial rights)