Summary 2006 WY 131

Summary of Decision issued October 16, 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.]

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

Case Name: Williams v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 131

Docket Number: 05-185

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Megan L. Hayes, Laramie, Wyoming; Donna D. Domonkos*, Appellate Counsel, and Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Hayes.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant attorney General and Leda M. Pojman. Argument by Ms. Pojman.

*Order granting Leave for Counsel to Withdraw entered September 15, 2006.

Issue: Whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Linda Greene killed Allen Ross.

Holding: The Court provided a dramatis personae in the full opinion. The State’s theory of the case was that Linda Greene murdered Allen Ross and Julia Williams assisted her in concealing the crime. It was Julia Williams’ theory of the case that Denis Greene murdered Allen Ross and that she assisted Denis in concealing that crime under threats of death made by him.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: The prosecution made references to Linda Greene’s statement that she shot Ross even though the district court made a pretrial ruling that it was not admissible. However, Williams did not specifically object at the time the prosecutor made reference, so the errors must be reviewed under the plain error doctrine. For the Court to hold that an error in the nature of prosecutorial misconduct has affected an accused’s substantial right, the Court must conclude based on the entire record a reasonable possibility exists that in the absence of the error the verdict might have been more favorable to the accused. In his opening statement, the prosecutor called attention to Denis Greene’s “confession” which included a reference to his statement that she killed Allen Ross. The Court stated that it was an obscure enough reference given the jury’s limited access to all the facts that they could not conclude that, absent this statement, the verdict might have been more favorable to the accused. Also, Appellant contended that during his cross-examination of Denis Greene, the prosecutor violated the trial court’s liminal order. Denis Greene was describing his contacts with Appellant and Linda Greene in early 1996. He described an occasion where Appellant was standing back from Denis Greene and Linda Greene and had her hands in the pockets of a heavy coat worn on a very warm day in Kansas City. Denis Greene implied that Appellant might have had something in her coat pockets that could be used to harm him. Defense counsel objected and the district court overruled the objection. The prosecutor continued, defense counsel objected and the objection was sustained. The prosecutor continued along the same line and again defense objected and asked the district court to grant her motion for mistrial. The district court sustained the objection but denied the motion for mistrial. It was clear the prosecutor was treading on questionable ground. However it was an oblique reference to the prohibited statement by Greene and the jury had limited access to all the facts so the Court could not conclude that absent this statement the verdict might have been more favorable to the accused. The entire exchange amounted to legitimate evidence that suggested Greene and Appellant could be persons who killed Ross, without there being any mention that she actually stated that she did do it. The Court considered the affect of two other deliberate comments by the prosecutor and determined that the misconduct, to the extent it was misconduct, was not prejudicial and there was not a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable had the misconduct not occurred.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: In addressing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, the Court must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reviews the evidence with the assumption the evidence of the prevailing party is true, disregard the evidence favoring the unsuccessful party, and give the prevailing party the benefit of every favorable inference that they could reasonably draw from the evidence. Appellant asserted that there is insufficient evidence that Greene was the person who unlawfully killed Ross. After the Court applied the above standard of review, they concluded the evidence is sufficient. They set out a line of reasoning that the jury might have followed that Appellant was not a credible witness.

Affirmed judgment and sentence.

J. Hill delivered the order for the court.

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