Summary 2007 WY 146

Summary of Decision issued September 18, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Edwards v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 146

Docket Number: 06-25

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Kerin.

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

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in precluding relevant evidence of the deceased’s prior conduct, prohibiting Appellant from fully presenting his defense.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant appeals the judgment and sentence of the district court convicting him of aggravated vehicular homicide.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard. The burden is on defendant to establish such an abuse.
Appellant defended on the theory that his passenger in the car (who died as a result of injuries in the accident) grabbed the steering wheel which was the proximate cause of the accident. In an effort to support the theory, he sought to introduce the testimony of Demel that Southworth (the victim) had grabbed his steering wheel under similar circumstances two weeks earlier. Appellant argued the evidence was admissible to show identity, course of conduct, plan, motive, and modus operandi under W.R.E. 404(b). Almost identical facts appear in State v. Young. Mr. Young argued that the rule was not limited to use by the prosecution and should be equally available to a defendant when used to prove his theory of defense. Under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Court found the proffered testimony of Demel was improperly excluded. Evidence of a victim’s actions is relevant whenever those actions have a bearing on the defendant’s wrongful conduct or in determining whether the defendant’s wrongful conduct was the proximate cause of a victim’s death. The evidence of Southworth’s prior actions was crucial to Appellant’s defense that his conduct was not the proximate cause of the accident and Southworth’s death.

Holding: The district court abused its discretion in excluding Demel’s testimony under W.R.E. 403 or 404. Given the Court’s resolution of the issue, they did not address Appellant’s other complaints concerning the district court’s evidentiary rulings. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Reversed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/36zbae .