Summary 2007 WY 172

Summary of Decision issued October 31, 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: Mabe v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 172

Docket Number: 06-289

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; and Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Donna D. Domonkos, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General; Ursula P. Schultz, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred when it admitted exhibits that contained unidentified handwriting.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant was convicted on a felony charge of larceny by bailee. Appellant charged items to a work related account which were for personal use and later admitted to planning to leave the area without paying for the charged items.
Standard of Review: The Court applied the plain error standard stating they would reverse only if Appellant showed an error in the record that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious manner resulting in a material prejudice to a substantial right.
Appellant’s contention was that the unidentified handwriting on nine of the invoices was impermissible hearsay. The question of whether the charges were personal or work related was one of the main issues at trial. Appellant contested the “Willie Personal” notations because the declarant was never identified. The Court stated it was not necessary to identify who authored each piece of information contained in a business record. The party objecting to the admission of a business record has the burden of establishing that a lack of trustworthiness should keep the document out of evidence.

Holding: Under the plain error analysis, it was the appellant’s burden to show prejudice. To do so, he must have shown a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the evidence had not been admitted. Appellant had not done so.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3c9467 .