Summary 2005 WY 164

Summary of Decision issued December 28, 2005

[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: Marshall, Jr. v. State

Citation: 2005 WY 164

Docket Number: 04-156

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Tonya A. Morse, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dee Morgan, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Morgan.

Date of Decision: December 28, 2005

Issues: Whether the prosecution’s solicitation of testimony as to the guilty pleas of the co-conspirators or his use of the guilty pleas in argument was plain error that effectively denied Appellant his right to a trial on the merits. Whether judicial bias deprived the Appellant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Whether ineffective assistance of counsel denied Appellant his constitutional right to a fair trial. Whether prosecutorial misconduct denied Appellant his constitutional right to a fair trial.

Holdings: At trial, Appellant waived the issue of the testimony regarding witnesses’ guilty pleas when he elicited information concerning plea agreements with the State during cross-examination. The Court therefore did not address the issue further.
Appellant’s judicial bias argument was not supported factually or legally. The Court’s review of the record revealed no evidence that the trial judge was biased against Appellant. The Court found no merit in this claim.
The Court reviews claims of ineffective counsel in light of all the circumstances to determine whether trial counsel’s acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. The Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony based on the expert’s lack of qualifications. The Court noted that Appellant did not identify with specificity the comments upon which counsel was remiss in not objecting and he failed to provide any legal analysis supporting his ineffectiveness claim.
Appellant’s assertions regarding prosecutorial misconduct required him to demonstrate plain error. The Court reviewed the statements of the prosecutor and determined they were a legitimate argument as to what inferences the jury should or should not draw from the evidence produced at trial, and what evidence and other factors the jury should weigh, in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses. Also, Appellant failed to present a cogent argument with citation to pertinent legal authority explaining what rule of law the challenged comments violated in a clear and obvious way. Nor did he provide any analysis as to how he was materially prejudiced by those comments.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/9v6ky .