891 F.3d 900
10th Cir.2018Background
- Cornelia Tapaha was convicted of assault after she struck her boyfriend, Myron Yazzie, with her car; she claimed self-defense based on fear from prior abuse.
- At trial Cornelia, her sister Tamara, and Yazzie testified about the incident and three prior violent episodes; the district court excluded additional proposed testimony detailing other prior acts and Yazzie’s character for violence.
- Cornelia gave a post-incident interview to Officer Jefferson Joe; the government played a redacted version at trial that omitted Cornelia’s references to Yazzie’s past abuse.
- Cornelia argued on appeal that (1) exclusion of additional witness testimony violated her right to present a defense, (2) exclusion of certain Yazzie testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, and (3) the court erred by excluding portions of her interview.
- The Tenth Circuit held that speculative portions of Yazzie’s proffered testimony were properly excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence, that any other evidentiary exclusions did not deprive Cornelia of her constitutional right to present a defense, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated, and the redacted interview exclusions were permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Cornelia’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of additional testimony (from Cornelia, Tamara, Yazzie) violated the right to present a defense | Excluded testimony about Yazzie’s broader history of violence and specifics of incidents was necessary to show reasonableness of her fear and bolster self-defense | Excluded evidence was cumulative, insufficiently specific, or speculative and properly excluded under Rules of Evidence | Affirmed: district court within discretion; even assuming error, excluded evidence would not have created reasonable doubt or necessarily exculpated defendant |
| Whether limiting cross-examination of Yazzie violated the Confrontation Clause | Cornelia contends restriction of Yazzie’s testimony infringed confrontation rights | Yazzie was Cornelia’s witness (not declared adverse); Confrontation Clause does not apply to exclusion of defense’s own witnesses | Held: No Confrontation Clause violation; argument essentially restates right-to-present-defense claim |
| Whether court erred in excluding portions of Cornelia’s interview with Officer Joe (admissibility as prior consistent statement or to impeach Officer Joe) | Excised statements showing past abuse were admissible as prior consistent statements to rebut fabrication or to impeach Officer Joe’s testimony | No prior allegation of recent fabrication when statements were offered; excised remarks concerned past abuse and did not contradict Officer Joe’s answers about statements on the day of the incident | Held: Exclusion proper; statements not admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) and did not impeach Officer Joe’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dowlin, 408 F.3d 647 (10th Cir. 2005) (two-part test for constitutional right-to-present-defense claim)
- United States v. Markey, 393 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2004) (describing components of the right to present a defense)
- Richmond v. Embry, 122 F.3d 866 (10th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing due process/compulsory process from Confrontation Clause for defense witnesses)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (right to present a defense is not absolute and must yield to evidentiary rules)
- United States v. Toledo, 739 F.3d 562 (10th Cir. 2014) (self-defense requires objectively reasonable fear)
- Hill v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 815 F.3d 651 (10th Cir. 2016) (witness testimony must be based on personal knowledge; speculative testimony inadmissible)
- Lowry v. City of San Diego, 858 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2017) (exclusion permissible where witness lacked personal knowledge)
- United States v. Talamante, 981 F.2d 1153 (10th Cir. 1992) (self-defense fails where safe withdrawal was possible)
- United States v. Pam, 867 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2017) (appellate court may affirm on any correct basis supported by the record)
- United States v. Wilkens, 742 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2014) (Confrontation Clause does not apply to exclusion of testimony from defense witnesses)