Summary 2007 WY 24

Summary of Decision issued February 13, 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: Mattern v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 24

Docket Number: 05-218

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade Waldrip, Judge

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

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

Issue: Whether the State engaged in purposeful discrimination when it exercised peremptory challenges to exclude two Hispanics from the jury. Whether character evidence was improperly admitted at trial. Whether the district court properly instructed the jury as to the elements of the crime of attempted first-degree murder. Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Appellant guilty of attempted first-degree murder.

Facts/Discussion: A jury found Appellant guilty of attempted first-degree murder and the district court sentenced him to life in prison. The instant appeal raises questions concerning jury selection, uncharged misconduct evidence, the adequacy of the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Purposeful Discrimination: The Court began their analysis with a discussion of the context in which peremptory challenges occur. They discussed the “any reason or no reason” rule and then the development of the “Batson challenge.” The “Batson challenge” follows a three-step process: first the defendant must establish a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges then the State must come forward with a “neutral explanation” for the exercise of its peremptory challenge and finally, the trial judge then determines whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. The Court has reviewed “Batson challenges” previously in Bueno-Hernandez v. State, Espinoza v. State and Beartusk v. State. Application of the Batson analysis in the instant case convinced the Court the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The district court concluded the State did not purposefully discriminate against the Hispanic jurors as a group and the record supported that conclusion.

Improperly Admitted Character Evidence: Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Where there was no objection at trial, the Court reviews the evidence under the plain error standard. Appellant raised two claims under this issue involving W.R.E. 404(a) and W.R.E. 609. The Court stated Appellant failed to show how the statement violated the admonition of W. R. E. 404(a) that evidence of a character trait not be admitted to prove the Appellant acted in conformity therewith on the occasion in question. Appellant did not show how he was prejudiced by the isolated comment. During an interview after Appellant’s arrest in Arizona two months after the incident underlying the case, Appellant described the incident in detail on tape. The parties disagreed as to whether Appellant properly objected below to admission of the evidence. So the Court reviewed the record to reconstruct the status of the issue as it was presented to the district court. The Court decided Appellant’s argument was unpersuasive. Their assessment of the issue led them to agree with the State’s final conclusion. The Court made note Appellant did not preserve the issues with adequate objections below. The Court decided defense decisions must have been made for tactical reasons. The record did not show the district court committed a clear error of law or that Appellant was prejudiced by his decision to stipulate to admission of the entire statement.

Properly Instruct the Jury: The jury instructions in the case consisted mainly of pattern instructions. Appellant did not object to the instructions and proffered the instruction defining “premeditated.” Appellant failed to present a plain error analysis of the issue. The Court could have declined to consider the arguments presented because of the procedural deficiencies. However, to avoid later charges of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court made an observation about the instructions that was dispositive of Appellant’s primary complaint that even though the jury was instructed that first-degree murder required premeditation in the form of an interval of time sufficient to form the intent to kill before doing the act of killing, the jury was not instructed that Appellant must actually have deliberated. The Court rejected that argument because the instruction that was given clearly made just that point.

Sufficient Evidence: Defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the State’s case, which motion was denied. Appellant argued at trial that the State proved neither premeditation nor malice. On appeal, he argued that he did not act purposely or with premeditation. The Court evaluated the evidence of premeditation and referred to their rule for premeditation as stated in Hightower. The Court considered the evidence of the prior relationship between the victim and the Appellant. The evidence showed that the Appellant’s intense dislike for the victim predated the incident. It was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude in this case that the manner in which the gun was used, when combined with all the other evidence was sufficient. Appellant’s second sufficiency of the evidence argument was inconsistent with his position at trial. The Court noted Appellant was re-arguing the facts. The Court’s only job was to determine whether sufficient evidence was presented for reasonable jurors to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant intentionally shot the victim.

Holding: The district court did not err in denying the Appellant’s Batson challenge or in denying the Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The jury was properly instructed as to the elements of the crime of attempted first-degree murder, and the State produced sufficient evidence for reasonable jurors to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty of that crime. Finally, no character evidence was improperly admitted.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/25ma6r .