Summary 2007 WY 2

Summary of Decision issued January 10, 2007

[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: Martin v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 2

Docket Number: 05-188

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender, PDP; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Diane E. Courselle, Director, DAP; Christopher G. Humphrey, Student Intern; Eang M. Man, Student Director, DAP. Argument by Ms. Man.

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

Issue: Whether abuse of discretion occurred when the district court refused to grant a mistrial after statements made by two of the State’s witnesses purported to connect Appellant with methamphetamine use and severely prejudiced the jury against the defendant. Whether the district court committed plain error when it failed to direct a verdict of acquittal after the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Appellant had left his place of employment.

Holding: A jury found Appellant guilty of escape from the Community Alternatives of Casper (CAC) work release program, where he was serving the remainder of his forty day sentence for a misdemeanor charge. The Court reviews claimed error in the denial of a motion for acquittal for abuse of discretion.

Denial of the Motion for Mistrial: The Court reviewed the testimony from the two witnesses that was the basis for the mistrial motion. The Court also reviewed the instructions given by the district court in regard to the testimony to the jury. The instructions emphasized what the district court previously indicated by ordering the redaction of the judgment, i.e., Appellant’s misdemeanor conviction was relevant but the particular offense leading to the conviction was not relevant. Later, the record showed that the district court instructed the jury to disregard an improper statement by a witness. In both instances, the Court presumed the jury followed the district court’s instructions. The Court’s task was to determine whether the district court exercised sound judgment with regard to what was right under the circumstances. The Court discussed Miller v. State where they held a constitutional presumption of unfair bias meant the jury panel was adjudged incapable of fairly judging the evidence. Under the particular circumstances of the instant case, the doctrine of unfair prejudice from evidence linking the accused to another crime does not apply. The question before the Court was whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mistrial motion after the jury heard not only that Appellant was an offender but also the testimony concerning his specific offenses. The Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Appellant asserted a witness’ testimony was the result of prosecutorial misconduct which should have resulted in a mistrial and the district court’s conclusion to the contrary was an abuse of discretion. Ordinarily, the Court does not address issues raised by a party for the first time on appeal. In the instant case, the Court considered the issue because it had been directly addressed by the district court. There was no evidence in the record from which the Court could conclude the prosecutor reasonably should have anticipated the non-responsive answer given by the witness. The prosecutor told the district court she advised the witness to testify only to matters within his own knowledge. The district court specifically determined the testimony was not elicited by the State and was instead a spontaneous statement. There was nothing in the record to support a conclusion that the district court’s determination was unreasonable. Also, the district court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the testimony.

Denial of the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal: Appellant contended the district court committed plain error when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State did not prove all the elements necessary for conviction of escape. The Court reviewed the record to determine whether sufficient evidence was presented to sustain a conviction. Considering the evidence, the Court concluded Appellant failed to show plain error. He failed to demonstrate the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it denied the motion. The Court found the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. Although there was no direct evidence of where he was during the hours he was missing form the work site, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant left his place of employment.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/u4blz .