Summary 2006 WY 97

Summary of Decision issued August 4, 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: Lopez v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 97

Docket Number: 05-106

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

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

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul 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: August 4, 2006.

Issue: Whether sufficient evidence existed to convict Appellant of voluntary manslaughter. Whether the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of voluntary manslaughter. Whether Appellant was subjected to vindictive prosecution and whether the habitual criminal allegation was properly proven.

Holding: Appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and of being a habitual criminal. He was sentenced to a term of 10 to 15 years with credit for all time served. This was a retrial after reversal of Appellant’s original conviction.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: When the Court considers a claim of the sufficiency of the evidence, they review the evidence with the assumption that the evidence of the prevailing party is true, they disregard the evidence favoring the unsuccessful party and give the prevailing party the benefit of every favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Appellant was tried for the crime of voluntary manslaughter, under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-105(a)(i). The Court stated that the issue turned upon which of the witnesses the jury decided were the most believable. The Court reviewed the record of the case including the testimony from William Chapin as well as the testimony of the three expert witnesses. They concluded that there was evidence from which the jury could find each of the elements of voluntary manslaughter and that they did so in light of the lesser included offense instruction.
Adequacy of the Instructions: Appellant contended that the instructions did not fully comprehend the nuances of the crime. The standard of review generally applicable to jury instructions is that they should inform jurors concerning the applicable law so that they can apply that law to their findings with respect to the material facts; they should be written with the particular facts and legal theories of the case in mind; and the test of whether a jury has been properly instructed on the necessary elements of the crime is whether the instructions leave no doubt as to the circumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed. Appellant made no objection to the instructions given. The Court reviewed Appellant’s argument and the cases cited and determined the cases were not pertinent to the case. The Court therefore concluded that Appellant failed to demonstrate plain error with respect to the instructions given to the jury.
Habitual Criminal – Vindictive Prosecution: A defendant has the burden of proof and must establish either (1) actual vindictiveness or (2) a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness which will give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to justify its decision with legitimate, articulable, objective reasons. If the defendant does not meet his burden of proof, however, the district court need not reach the government justification issue. Following a detailed consideration of the circumstances presented by this case, the district court determined that the State had met its burden. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err as a matter of law in not disallowing the amendment to the information.
Habitual Criminal – Sufficiency of the Evidence: The admission or exclusion of evidence is in the discretion of the district court and the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the district court abused its discretion. Appellant’s arguments as to the level of authenticity of the documents applied only to the weight to be given those documents, a matter to be argued to the jury. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting the evidence of Appellant’s prior convictions and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of guilt.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Affirmed.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/p6hnm .