## Facts

- Steven Charles Oldman and Sheila Oldman lived together intermittently for 10–12 years, held themselves out as spouses, and had four children; Sheila was six months pregnant.
- Sheila arrived at a police station badly beaten and hysterical, with extensive injuries including facial bruising and numerous human bite marks.
- Sheila identified Oldman as her attacker to a police officer and later to an emergency-room physician.
- Sheila did not testify at trial.
- Over objection, the prosecution introduced the emergency-room physician’s testimony recounting Sheila’s statements identifying Oldman as the person who beat and bit her.
- During voir dire, a prospective juror stated, in substance, that he believed Oldman was guilty.
- The trial court excused that juror, questioned the remaining panel about impartiality and the presumption of innocence, denied a mistrial, and proceeded to trial.
- A jury convicted Oldman of aggravated assault and battery against a pregnant woman under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting the emergency-room physician’s testimony recounting the victim’s out-of-court identification of Oldman violated the hearsay rules and Oldman’s confrontation rights.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after a prospective juror expressed an opinion that Oldman was guilty.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the victim’s statements to the emergency-room physician were admissible under W.R.E. 803(2) (excited utterance) and W.R.E. 803(4) (statements for medical diagnosis or treatment).
- The court held admission of those statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements fell within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions and were sufficiently reliable.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial because excusing the juror and confirming the remaining panel’s ability to honor the presumption of innocence cured any potential prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A victim’s identification of an assailant may be admissible as an excited utterance when made under the stress of a startling event and in circumstances showing spontaneity and reduced capacity for fabrication.
- Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment are admissible when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment; in appropriate circumstances, identification of the assailant can be pertinent, including to address injury source, infection risk, and patient safety planning.
- When hearsay statements are admitted under firmly rooted exceptions and show sufficient indicia of reliability, their admission may satisfy confrontation requirements even if the declarant does not testify.
- A mistrial based on prejudicial voir dire comments is reviewed for abuse of discretion; prompt removal of the offending juror and careful inquiry confirming remaining jurors’ impartiality can cure potential prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Oldman’s conviction, ruling that the victim’s identification of him to an emergency-room physician was properly admitted under excited-utterance and medical-treatment hearsay exceptions without violating confrontation rights, and that the trial court reasonably denied a mistrial after curing any possible panel prejudice from a prospective juror’s guilt comment.


Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957 (Wyo. 2000)