Summary 2007 WY 152

Summary of Decision issued September 21, 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: Butz v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 152

Docket Number: 06-215

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Diane Courselle, Director, DAP; Patricia Lara, Student Intern, DAP. Argument by Ms. Lara.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Pojman.

Issues: Whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and willfully permitted his daughters to remain in a room or dwelling where methamphetamine was possessed when the State’s evidence showed that, while he and his daughters were helping a friend pack up his house, Appellant unexpectedly came upon a small baggie of methamphetamine and that baggie was placed in a different room than the one in which his daughters remained. Whether the trial court committed plain error when it did not instruct the jury on the definition of: “knowingly” – a key element of the child endangerment statute. Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred when in summation the prosecutor relied upon facts that had never been presented to the jury; was this conduct likely to mislead the jury and to result in a conviction based upon improper outside factors in violation of Appellant’s due process rights.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant challenges his conviction for endangering his children by knowingly and willfully allowing them to remain in a dwelling where he knew methamphetamine was possessed. Appellant worked for David Raths who used marijuana and methamphetamine and sold methamphetamine. Law enforcement was investigating Raths’ involvement with illegal drugs. They executed a search warrant at the same time that Appellant and his daughters were at the Raths home packing his things to move.

“Knowingly and Willfully” Element: The first two issues pertain to the language of § 6-4-405(b).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court determines whether a jury could have reasonably concluded each of the elements of the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that Appellant’s argument implicated the difference between general and specific intent crimes. The Court has consistently ruled that criminal statutes including the mental elements of “knowingly and/or willfully” describe general intent crimes. Under the clear language of the statute, the State was required to prove Appellant knowingly and willfully permitted the children to remain in a place where he knew methamphetamine was possessed. The trial evidence together with the reasonable inferences flowing from it was sufficient.
Jury Instructions: The Court reviewed using the plain error standard because Appellant did not object to the jury instructions nor did he offer an instruction. The Court’s precedent makes it clear that the statutory terms “knowingly” and “willfully” generally do not have specialized meanings any different from their common meanings.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: The Court reviewed Appellant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct for plain error because he did not object to the statements at trial. The statements were made during the rebuttal portion of the closing argument. The prosecutor’s misstatement of the evidence appeared in the record and was a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law which satisfied the first two elements of the plain error standard. The Court reviewed the record and stated they were not convinced that the prosecutor’s statements materially prejudiced the Appellant.

Holding: The trial evidence together with the reasonable inferences flowing from it was sufficient to justify the jury’s finding that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt he knowingly and willfully allowed the children to remain in the dwelling where he knew methamphetamine was possessed. The district court did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law by failing to instruct the jury on a “technical” meaning of the intent element of the crime. The Court stated there was no basis for concluding Appellant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s misstatement.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2k3ucr .