Fieldman v. Brannon

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his solicitation of murder for hire conviction on ground that trial court improperly precluded him from providing testimony about his interactions with police informant during five-week period prior to defendant’s recorded conversation with hit-man that defendant claimed would support claim that he did not have any intent to have his ex-wife and her boyfriend killed. While trial court found that defendant’s proposed testimony was irrelevant to knowing what defendant's intent was on day of recorded statement, said exclusion violated defendant’s due process right to present complete defense to charged offense, since: (1) his proposed testimony represented his entire defense that he lacked requisite intent to have hit-man kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend, where defendant claimed that his expressed intent to kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend during recorded conversation was charade; (2) as result of trial court’s exclusion, jury lacked vital context to weigh defendant’s credibility about his lack of intent; (3) instant exclusion of defendant’s proposed testimony was arbitrary, where prosecutor was able to present evidence of defendant’s motive to kill his ex-wife that dated back to four months prior to recorded conversation, which was same timeframe of defendant’s proposed testimony; and (4) excluded testimony was material and favorable to defendant. Ct. rejected State’s argument that defendant was essentially able to present defense to instant charged offense through other admitted evidence.