Summary 2007 WY 162

Summary of Decision issued October 17, 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: Schultz v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 162

Docket Number: 06-229

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric Alan Johnson, Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; Geoffrey Gunnerson, Student Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; Brian J. Hunter and Hiliary Wilson, Student Interns, Prosecution Assistance Program. Argument by Mr. Hunter.

Issues: Whether the court committed evidentiary errors that justify a new trial. Whether the cumulative effect of all trial errors adversely affected Appellant’s substantial rights.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated assault and battery for his part in a road-rage incident. Shots were fired at Mr. and Mrs. Peterson’s vehicle as they were driving on I-80 in Albany County near mile marker 335.
Standard of Review The Court gives considerable deference to rulings on the admission of evidence and upholds them on appeal if they can find a legitimate basis.
Appellant objected to a statement by the victim that he categorized as hearsay. The Court reviewed the record and stated it was not hearsay and the trial court had a legitimate basis for ruling it admissible. Appellant suggested the testimony should have been excluded under Crawford v. Washington but the Court stated Crawford did not apply.
Appellant contended the trial court improperly curtailed his counsels’ cross examination of a witness by sustaining an objection. The Court noted that under W.R.E. 611(a), the trial court has wide discretion in controlling the mode and order of interrogating witnesses. Unless there is flagrant abuse, the Court upholds decisions concerning the examination of witnesses.
Wyoming case law indicates disapproval of argumentative questions. The trial court properly sustained the prosecution’s objection that the questions were argumentative.
Appellant next asserted error in the admission by the trial court of the six bullets found in his gun when it was seized. It was relevant because it made more probable that Appellant had not fired the gun in an effort to keep the other vehicle from running him off the road. The objected evidence that the bullets were hollow points was not supported by plain error analysis and no cogent argument or pertinent authority was provided. The Court declined to consider it further.
The testimony that the incident took place in Albany County did not opine directly on Appellant’s guilt or evidence. It provided “related information offered to assist the jury in resolving the factual issues placed before it.” The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the testimony.
Testimony from Ms. Peterson about their location at the time of the incident was an exception to the hearsay rule as a present sense impression. The Court stated the trial court did not err in admitting the statement.
Appellant’s final contention considered the relevance of testimony regarding his “intent” to hurt someone. The objection was overruled by the trial court and the Court found it was not an abuse of discretion because of Appellant’s claim of self defense and his assertion that he only intended to fire into the air.

Holding: The Court reviewed each of the seven different evidentiary rulings made by the trial court and determined that the trial court had a legitimate basis for admission of the evidence. The Court rejected Appellant’s claim of cumulative error because the Court had found no errors had been made.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yubqa3 .