Summary 2006 WY 77

Summary of Decision issued June 29, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

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

Case Name: Bolin v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 77

Docket Number: 05-129

Appeals from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane E. Courselle, Director DAP; Joseph J. Petrone, Student Director. Argument by Mr. Petrone.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Matthew D. Obrecht, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Obrecht.

Date of Decision: June 29, 2006.

Issue: Whether plain error occurred when detectives testified to standard department procedure related to the use of a confidential informant to make a controlled buy from a suspected narcotics dealer, and mentioned other illegal narcotics in addition to marijuana. Whether plain error occurred when detective testified concerning the procedure used to ensure that the confidential informant in this case provided the Cheyenne Police Department with reliable information during the controlled buys. Whether the district court erred by allowing appellant to proceed pro se at his sentencing hearing.

Holding: Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of delivery of marijuana in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(ii). He appeals claiming plain error occurred when the district court allowed expert testimony from a police detective concerning what is usually done in drug investigations rather than what was actually done in this investigation and about the confidential informant’s credibility.
Standard of Review: Defense did not object at trial to the expert testimony about which Appellant now complains in his first two issues, so the plain error standard applies. Because of the constitutional implications present when a defendant is forced to appear pro se after refusing, either explicitly or implicitly, to accept the services of appointed counsel, the Court conducts a de novo review.
Plain Error
Expert Testimony Concerning Drug Investigations: The testimony indicated the detectives searched the informant and his vehicle using the same procedure usually used in cases involving attempted drug purchases by a confidential informant. The testimony concerning the searches violated no clear rule of law and Appellant did not show it denied him a substantial right resulting in material prejudice. Testimony regarding general procedures used by law enforcement in conducting drug investigations with confidential informants was relevant. It is relevant when it forms part of the history of the event or serves to enhance the natural development of the facts and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Expert Testimony Concerning Reliability of Confidential Informant: After analyzing the detective’s testimony, the Court held that he did not improperly comment on the credibility of the confidential informant, rather he testified that the informant was forthcoming in disclosing his prior conviction and he relied upon that disclosure in deciding to use him as an informant.
Voluntariness of Waiver of Right to Counsel: Appellant requested the appointment of substitute counsel after the district court allowed his court-appointed counsel to withdraw because a conflict had arisen. Appellant requested an attorney outside the public defender’s office. The district court responded stating there was no basis for appointing substitute counsel outside the public defender’s office. The district court gave Appellant a clear choice between appearing with legal representation or appearing pro se. He chose to proceed without counsel without showing good cause for refusing to accept representation by appointed substitute counsel. The Court held the district court did not err in allowing Appellant to proceed without legal representation at the sentencing hearing.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Affirmed.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/z28xt .