Summary 2006 WY 39

Summary of Decision issued March 31, 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: Doherty v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 39

Docket Number: 05-24

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

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

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

Date of Decision: March 31, 2006

Issue: Whether the jury was properly instructed as to the elements of the crime of felony possession of methamphetamine and was the evidence sufficient to show Appellant intentionally and actually possessed methamphetamine. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for new trial. Whether Appellant received a fair sentencing hearing.

Holding: Sufficiency of the Evidence: Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed according to whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Three jury instructions and the verdict form were relevant to Appellant’s claim of error. Appellant did not object at trial to the instructions or the verdict form. The Court reviewed the record and found sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant possessed a controlled substance as charged. Methamphetamine was discovered inches away from Appellant after he made several unusual movements with his leg. The baggie containing the methamphetamine was warm to the touch. Appellant was under arrest and was aware he would be taken to jail giving him motive to dispose of the substance. Reasonable inferences from this evidence support the jury’s verdict.
Prosecutorial misconduct: Appellant claimed error occurred during closing arguments because the State: argued facts not in evidence; implied Appellant was a liar; misstated the law and impermissibly shifted the burden to Appellant to prove his innocence; and improperly testified to an ultimate fact. Appellant did not object to State’s closing argument at trial. A failure to impose a timely objection is treated as a waiver unless the prosecutor’s misconduct is so flagrant as to constitute plain error. The propriety of closing arguments are measured in the context of the entire argument and compared with the evidence produced at trial. The Court reviewed the prosecution’s closing argument and defense counsel’s efforts to utilize comments to benefit Appellant and was unable to find any prejudice to him and rejected his claim of plain error. The Court also rejected Appellant’s remaining allegations of prosecutorial misconduct because Appellant failed to properly cite to the record to enable the Court to identify the offending prosecutorial statements.
Motion for new trial: Decisions to grant or deny a motion for a new trial are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. During the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the district court determined that no prejudice resulted from the State’s question. The district court had instructed the jury to disregard any evidence that was ordered to be stricken. The Court presumed the jury followed the instructions. The trial judge was satisfied that no prejudice resulted and the Court did not second guess that determination on appeal.
Sentencing hearing: Sentencing decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. The Court determined that Appellant was not deprived of a fair sentencing. The district court agreed to consider Appellant’s point of view regarding the comments in the PSI concerning the ASI. Appellant did not demonstrate that the district court based its decision upon that portion of the report to which he objected. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the PSI writer’s criticism of the ASI assessment impacted the sentencing decision. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments amounted to manifest injustice. The district court is permitted to consider a defendant’s criminal background and his character when exercising its discretion in imposing a sentence. The district court did not ultimately accept the prosecutor’s recommended sentence of a lengthy prison sentence.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

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