Summary 2005 WY 146

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Butcher v. State

Citation: 2005 WY 146

Docket Number: 04-208

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth Koski, Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Marion Yoder, Senior Assistant Public Defender.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Georgia Tibbetts, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: November 22, 2005

Issues: Whether the district court erred in denying the Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the first-degree murder charge. Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of guilt on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. Whether the jury was improperly instructed on the meaning of the word "purposely". Whether cumulative prejudicial "flight" evidence was improperly admitted. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting irrelevant prejudicial evidence and by making improper argument.

Holdings: Motions for judgment of acquittal are governed by W.R.Cr.P. 29. The standard of review provides that if there is substantial evidence to sustain a conviction of the crime, the motion for acquittal should not be granted. The jury found the Appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder which in effect acquitted Appellant of the charged offense of first-degree murder. The Court stated could be no possible error or prejudice.

The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is to assess whether all the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. The Court reviewed the record and found it reasonable that the jury conclude that Appellant's claim of self-defense was untrue.

In criminal cases, an essential function of jury instructions is to instruct the jury concerning the elements of the crime. Appellant argues that the definition instructions were improper because "the type of 'purposeful' conduct necessary to establish second degree murder cannot be undertaken thoughtlessly." The Court stated that there was no evidence in the record that the Appellant's stabbing was "undertaken thoughtlessly" or that the jury convicted Appellant under any such standard.

Admissibility of evidence decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The record clearly contains testimony and argument of evidence of flight. The Court has consistently held that evidence of flight is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt. The Court found no clear violation of an unequivocal rule of law.

The Court decides claims of prosecutorial misconduct by reference to the entire record and where the claim is one of improper argument, they consider it in the context of the entire argument. In the context of the full record and the entirety of the parties' arguments, there was neither a clear violation of unambiguous law, nor any resultant prejudice to the Appellant. The Court reiterated that they are reluctant to find plain error in closing arguments because they do not want to place the district court in the position of having to act as opposing counsel.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.