Summary 2007 WY 157
Summary of Decision issued October 4, 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:
Citation: 2007 WY 157
Docket Number: 06-171
Appeal from the
Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, Interim Public Defender; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Public Defender; and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.
Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Paul S. Rehurek, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal, made on the basis that the State had not proven the elements of the crime of burglary. Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior misconduct.
Facts/Discussion: Appellant appeals his conviction on 11 counts of burglary.
Standard of Review: The Court’s task was to examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and determine whether the jury could reasonably have found the slight corroborative evidence needed to connect Appellant to the eleven burglaries.
The State asserted that it provided the slight corroborative evidence by demonstrating the similarities among the eleven burglaries and the burglar’s habit of consuming the food and drink he found at the burgled businesses. The Court’s review of the record also revealed that the State provided testimony that a shoe print at one burglary site had a hole design similar to a shoe known to belong to Appellant. The State also noted that Appellant arrived in
The Court next considered whether the testimony concerning Appellant’s involvement in previous burglaries should have been ruled inadmissible under W.R.E. 404(b). The Court will uphold a trial court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion. Counsel for Appellant had filed a pretrial demand for notice of the prosecution’s intent to introduce evidence under W.R.E. 404(b). Observing the standards and procedures set forth in Gleason v. State, and its progeny, the trial court held a pretrial hearing to consider the evidence under W.R.E. 404(b). The trial court found the similarities sufficiently distinctive so that the evidence of the previous burglaries was relevant and probative on the issue of Appellant’s identity as the perpetrator of the charged burglaries. It concluded that the evidence was more probative than unfairly prejudicial, largely because the previous burglaries were not more reprehensible than the charged burglaries and that the evidence was not unnecessarily cumulative so that it would not make Appellant less sympathetic to the jury.
Holding: The trial court carefully analyzed the evidence for admissibility under W.R.E.404(b), and articulated its legitimate basis for admitting the evidence to prove identity. It found the evidence more probative than unfairly prejudicial, and not unnecessarily cumulative. It provided appropriate limiting instructions to guide the jury’s consideration of the evidence. The Court found no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
J. Burke delivered the opinion.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/2wv2dh .
No comments:
Post a Comment