Summary 2006 WY 119

Summary of Decision issued September 26, 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: Magallanes v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 119

Docket Number: 05-64

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Tonya A. Morse, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Appellant guilty of murder in the first degree where the evidence failed to show a conclusive cause of death, where no witness testified that they saw Appellant actually shoot the victim and where there is no physical evidence linking the victim to the crime. Whether ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically in failing to follow up on DNA and scientific testing, denied Appellant his constitutional right to a fair trial. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the law, vouching for the credibility of a witness, and misstating the facts in closing argument.

Holding: Appellant was convicted following a jury trial of first-degree premeditated murder in the death of Joseph Lopez and conspiracy to commit murder. During the evening of January 17, 2004, Joseph Lopez and his younger brother Anthony met Bobby Rojas, Appellant and his brother Jesse Magallanes at the home of Emilio Teniente in Greeley, Colorado. Later, that evening, they all drove to Cheyenne to visit the house of Teniente’s sister, Sophia. During the drive, Appellant became angry and began punching Lopez. Later, after approximately 2 hours visiting in Cheyenne, on the return trip to Greeley, the fighting began again. The car was stopped on Campstool Road; Lopez was removed from the car, beaten, shot and left on the road. Shortly before 2 AM, a security officer for Frontier Refinery left work and drove east on Campstool Road where his car hit the body of Lopez.
Evidentiary Sufficiency: In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim the Court must determine whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s complaint concerning the cause of death rested largely on selected portions of the testimony of the forensic pathologist who autopsied Lopez. It ignored the evidence that when Appellant pulled Lopez from the car, those activities could have reasonably been inferred to have occurred on the road, based on the reported seating arrangement in the car. Appellant also ignored that the shell casings were found on the road in close proximity to Lopez’s body. The forensic pathologist testified that the gunshot wounds to the brain might not have immediately resulted in death; that the injuries caused to Lopez by the vehicle occurred shortly before or shortly after Lopez expired, and that the wounds would have incapacitated him. From that evidence, a rational jury could have reasonably inferred that Lopez was shot in the roadway and left to die. The Court found ample evidence in the record to support a reasonable conclusion that Lopez’s death was a direct result of Appellant’s discharge of bullets into his head. The record revealed that witnesses testified Appellant was last to handle the gun prior to the shooting, that Lopez was on the ground when Appellant pointed the gun towards the ground and fired twice, and that Appellant stated to the occupants of the car that he had shot Lopez in the forehead and the back of the head. A rational jury could easily conclude from that evidence that it was Appellant who killed Lopez. Appellant did not develop the claim that there was no physical evidence linking Lopez to the crime so the Court did not address it.
Ineffective Assistance: The Court evaluates a claim of ineffective assistance considering whether in light of all the circumstances, trial counsel’s acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Appellant alleged that ineffectiveness occurred as a result of DNA testing not being performed on fingernail scrapings from Lopez, that the car driven that night was not checked for fingerprints and tested for blood and that the shirt left at the sister’s house was not tested. However, the record reveals that trial counsel’s strategy was to use the unknown nature of the untested evidence to Appellant’s advantage by suggesting it would have shown he had no contact with Lopez the night of the murder. Trial counsel further argued the State purposely did not test the evidence because it feared the results would weaken its case against Appellant. Counsel would have had to sacrifice that aspect of Appellant’s defense if he had had the evidence tested. Viewed in this context, the Court stated that trial counsel’s strategic decision to forego testing was well within sound trial strategy of a reasonably competent attorney.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: The Court judges the propriety of any comment within the closing argument in the context of the prosecutor’s entire argument considering the context of the statements and comparing them with the evidence produced at trial. Appellant did not object at trial so the Court applied the doctrine of plain error. Appellant must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that in the absence of the alleged errors, the outcome of his trial would have been more favorable to him. Appellant failed to provide legal analysis or explanation of how the challenged comments materially prejudiced him. Due to the severity of the charges, the Court independently examined the challenged comments in light of the entire record and applicable legal principles and concluded that Appellant’s complaints were without merit.
The Court noted that they continue to see complaints of misconduct arising from remarks made by prosecutors during closing arguments and referred litigants to the Court’s comments in Butcher v. State.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the order for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/fc794 .