Summary 2006 WY 17

Summary of Decision issued January 26, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion 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: Miller v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 17

Docket Number: 05-33

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Honorable Jere Ryckman, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Mike Cornia, Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Causey.

Date of Decision: January 26, 2006

Issues: Whether denying Appellant the ability to question the State’s only witness regarding his recent conviction violated Appellant’s right to confrontation. Whether the admission of Justin Miller’s statements to the circuit court judge implicating Appellant was error requiring reversal. Whether the presentation of evidence and argument involving Justin Miller’s guilty plea was plain error. Whether there was sufficient evidence presented to support Appellant’s convictions, under the alternate theories of delivery presented to the jury.

Holdings: Denial of Right to Confrontation: Appellant’s constitutional claim is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. The State filed a motion in limine to prohibit the defense from inquiring into criminal charges then pending against their witness Justin Miller. The district court granted the State’s motion. The Court reviewed the district court record and stated that it did not see how Appellant’s right to effectively cross-examine Justin Miller was impaired by the liminal ruling. The district court had specifically stated that it would revisit the issue if defense counsel could produce a more significant reason for the introduction of the evidence.
Justin Miller’s Statements in the Circuit Court: Appellant did not object at trial to the evidence challenged on his appeal so the plain error standard of review was applied. The Court carefully reviewed the record and concluded that no reasonable possibility existed that the jury’s verdict would have been different in the absence of the challenged testimony and the prosecutor’s comments.
Evidence of Justin Miller’s Guilty Plea: Appellant did not object to this testimony or to the prosecutor’s statements at issue so the plain error standard was applied. Miller claimed Kwallek v. State and the line of cases following it was the basis for the violation. The Court stated that Kwallek was inapplicable. Kwallek precludes the State from presenting evidence of guilty pleas of accomplices of co-conspirators in it’s case-in-chief under circumstances that might tend to implicate the defendant’s guilt by association. Here, Justin Miller was not an accomplice or co-conspirator in the crimes for which Appellant was on trial.
Evidentiary Sufficiency: The Bush line of cases held that when a crime may be committed in alternative ways, and the jury is instructed on each alternative and returns a general verdict of guilt, the verdict must be set aside unless sufficient evidence exists to support a finding of guilt as to each alternative. Here, the elements instruction given to the jury on the charged offense did not contain alternative elements upon which Appellant’s convictions could be based. The Court’s review of the record disclosed ample evidence from which the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/97f4o .