Summary 2006 WY 34

Summary of Decision issued March 22, 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: Thomas v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 34

Docket Number: 04-264

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, Honorable Wade Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender, PDP; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Domonkos.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric A. Johnson, Director, PAP; Jonathon Haidsiak, Student Director PAP; Timothy J. Forwood, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Haidsiak.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2006

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in concluding that a mistrial was not the appropriate remedy for the State’s late disclosure of a cassette tape and a vehicle. Whether appellant demonstrated plain error occurred in connection with the prosecutor’s references to battered woman syndrome during closing argument. Whether appellant demonstrated plain error occurred in connection with the admission of evidence designed to show the extent of the victim’s injuries. Whether the district court abused its discretion in authorizing the introduction of 404(b) evidence or in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial when the testimony briefly went beyond the scope of the pretrial order. Whether cumulative error requires reversal.

Holding: The Court reviews claims of error in the denial of a motion for mistrial and improper admission of Rule 404(b) evidence for abuse of discretion. The Court first reviewed whether the evidence the State withheld was material and whether the failure to disclose affected the outcome of the trial. A claim of failure to disclose evidence is reviewed de novo. Defense did not object to the State’s use of battered woman’s syndrome and victim impact testimony. Therefore, the Court reviews the claims of error on those issues for plain error.
Denial of motion to dismiss or for mistrial based upon State’s alleged discovery violations: To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate the prosecution suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable to the defendant, and the evidence was material. The essence of Brady is the discovery of information after the trial, which was known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense during trial. Appellant failed to show that the State’s late disclosure violated Brady or his due process rights. The evidence was disclosed and made available during trial.
The State’s use of battered woman’s syndrome: The Court carefully reviewed the record presented in the case and found no plain error in the district court’s decision to allow testimony and the State’s argument concerning battered woman’s syndrome. The testimony concerned behaviors of victims of abuse and did not address the characteristics or behaviors of perpetrators of abuse. It was a permissible use of battered woman’s syndrome evidence.
Victim impact testimony: Generally, the victim impact statements concerned the victim’s injuries and therefore were properly allowed. Most of the testimony about which appellant claims plain error was relevant and admissible to prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant inflicted “serious bodily injury”. Other portions of the quoted testimony may not have been relevant, but the Court was not persuaded that it affected Appellant’s substantial right.
W.R.E.404(b) evidence: At a pre-trial hearing the district court ruled the evidence of prior violence between Appellant and the victim was admissible as a result of the court’s application of the four-part test set forth in Vigil v. State. The district court concluded that (1) the evidence was offered for a proper purpose (2) the evidence was relevant (3) the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for unfair prejudice and (4) a limiting instruction should be given telling the jury to consider the evidence of prior violence only for the purpose for which it was submitted. The Court found the district court had appropriately considered the factors required in ruling the evidence was admissible.
Cumulative error: Having concluded there was no error requiring reversal, the Court likewise concluded no cumulative error occurred.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/egltk .