State of Utah, v. Sevilla

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Miguel Sevilla,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990587-CA

F I L E D
June 22, 2000
  2000 UT App 192 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Tyrone Medley

Attorneys:
Kristine M. Rogers, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Kenneth A. Bronston, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Davis.

BENCH, Judge:

Defendant challenges his murder conviction, arguing that the trial court "abused its discretion when it excluded reliable hearsay statements made by an unavailable witness and thus deprived Defendant of his right to confront and cross-examine his accusers." We disagree. The trial court properly excluded the hearsay statements made by Valdez to the police.

Even if the hearsay should have been admitted, its exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Genovesi, 909 P.2d 916, 922 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). When determining whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we consider "'the importance of the evidence to the prosecution's case, whether the evidence was cumulative, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.'" State v. Gallegos, 967 P.2d 973, 981 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Genovesi, 909 P.2d at 923). The harmlessness of any possible error in this case is apparent for at least two reasons: First, there was ample and overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt presented at trial, making the decision to admit or exclude the hearsay immaterial to the outcome of this case. See id. Second, the hearsay statements were presented to the jury in any event--in the form of a partial transcript of the preliminary hearing containing the statements--making presentation of the statements during cross examination merely cumulative. See id. In short, any possible error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, we affirm defendant's conviction.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge