United States v. Frost
88 Fed. R. Serv. 1228, 2012 WL 2755696, 684 F.3d 963 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant fails to object to the admission of hearsay testimony at trial, an appellate court will only reverse for plain error, which requires showing a clear and obvious error that affected the defendant's substantial rights and seriously undermined the fairness of the judicial proceedings.
Facts:
- In November 2009, Adam Frost, 28, was at his residence with A.W., a 17-year-old girl, and K.A., a 12-year-old relative of Frost.
- Frost purchased alcohol for the two girls, and they returned to his room to drink.
- At some point, K.A. left the room, and Frost had a sexual encounter with A.W.
- Frost's mother, Bernice Harris, discovered A.W. in the room and ordered her to leave the house.
- Immediately after leaving the house around 3:00 AM, A.W. called her sister, Bridget W., and stated that Frost had raped her.
- Over the next several hours, A.W. repeated her account of the rape to her parents, two police officers (Medina and Steinhage), a nurse practitioner (Murison) during a medical examination, and an FBI agent (Wallace).
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted Adam Frost in the U.S. District Court (a federal trial court).
- A jury convicted Frost of rape.
- The district court sentenced Frost to 200 months' imprisonment.
- Frost (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony and in its sentencing procedure.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of unobjected-to hearsay testimony from multiple witnesses recounting a rape victim's statements constitute plain error requiring reversal of a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Tymkovich, Circuit Judge.
No. The admission of the unobjected-to hearsay testimony from the five witnesses did not constitute plain error. The challenged testimony was either admissible under a recognized hearsay exception, the alleged error was not clear or obvious, or any potential error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights or the fairness of the proceedings. Bridget W.'s testimony was admissible under the excited utterance exception. The admission of the police officers' testimony was not a 'plain' error, even if a close call. Most of the nurse's testimony was admissible under the exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, and any error in admitting the rest did not warrant reversal on a silent record. Finally, any error in admitting the FBI agent's testimony did not affect the trial's fairness because defense counsel strategically used inconsistencies in that testimony to impeach the victim's credibility.
Analysis:
This decision powerfully illustrates the high threshold for reversal under the plain error standard of review for unpreserved evidentiary objections. It underscores that a failure to object at trial not only waives the more lenient 'abuse of discretion' standard but also often results in an underdeveloped record, making it nearly impossible for an appellant to prove that an error was 'plain' or prejudicial. The court's reasoning shows deference to potential trial strategies, suggesting that when an attorney's silence appears tactical—such as allowing inconsistent testimony to be admitted for impeachment purposes—an appellate court is highly unlikely to find that the proceeding's fundamental fairness was compromised.
