Summary 2007 WY 176

Summary of Decision issued November 5, 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: Wease v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 176

Docket Number: 06-187

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, Acting Wyoming Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos and Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender: Diane E. Courselle, Director, Defender Aid Program; Thomas Justice, Student Intern; and William Elliott, Student Intern. Argument by Ms. Courselle.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming 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 the district court imposed an illegal sentence when it sentenced Appellant in accordance with the post-amendment sexual assault statute despite the fact that the State established the criminal offense occurred before the statute was amended in 1997. Whether the evidence convicting Appellant of the criminal act charged in Count VII was insufficient because the State failed to establish that the criminal offense occurred within the time period charged in the third amended information. Whether plain error occurred when the State overwhelmed the jury with substantial uncharged misconduct evidence which was unduly prejudicial or beyond the scope of the parties’ 404(b) stipulation and the trial court failed to take adequate measures to limit the problems with its reckless approach to its evidentiary presentation. Whether trial counsel’s failure to develop any meaningful strategy to address the uncharged misconduct and notice issues amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel because it led to the virtually unrestricted admission of so much uncharged misconduct that the jury’s determination of the issues had to be adversely affected.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant sought review of his twelve convictions for various sex crimes, including second degree sexual assault, third degree sexual assault, and immoral or indecent acts with a child.
Illegal Sentence: A sentence in excess of that authorized by the legislature is illegal and subject to de novo review. Count V was alleged to have occurred during which time the punishment was imprisonment for not more than five years. The sentence imposed was for not less than 10 and not more than 15 years on that Count. Count V was vacated and remanded to the district court.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: When addressing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, the Court determines whether or not any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. After careful consideration of the issue, the Court concluded that in light of the instructions given to the jury, there was not sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction on Count VII.
Overwhelming and Prejudicial W.R.E. 404(b) Evidence: The Court noted that hundreds of incidents of other misconduct, bad acts, and crimes were called to the attention of the jury during the course of the witnesses’ testimony. The basis for the prosecution’s introduction of the evidence was for the limited purposes of establishing the natural progression of the events; the course of conduct; and to show Appellant’s patterns of conduct with the alleged victims. The State filed a notice of intent to use W.R.E. 404(b) evidence. No formal hearing was held. In place of the hearing, it appeared the parties agreed/stipulated to what W.R.E. 404(b) evidence was fair game and what was not under the circumstances of the case. The district court was called upon several times to provide the structure and discipline that the Court’s construction of the Rule demands. The Court turned to Gleason for their prevailing jurisprudence with respect to the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence. The Court reviewed the testimony and determined that it was admitted for a proper purpose. The district court did not formally perform the pretrial analysis made mandatory by Vigil to test its admissibility.
The Court iterated what they view as the preferred (although not exclusive) method for fully testing the admissibility of such evidence. [Please see the full text at the link below.]
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Appellant contended his defense counsel was ineffective in presenting a meaningful defense because he agreed to the admission of hundreds of acts of uncharged misconduct; he entered into an ill-defined, open-ended stipulation; failed to ask for limiting instructions; failed to address the lack of more specific notice when the State did file a notice of intent to use W.R.E. 404(b0 evidence; and failed to object to erroneous, confusing or otherwise inadequate limiting instructions given by the district court. The Court examined defense counsel’s performance. Much of the evidence was not 404(b) evidence as much as it was a recitation of the witness’s story of their life as it interacted with Appellant. The Court has recognized a relaxed standard with respect to this sort of evidence in child molestation cases. In light of that standard, the Court was unable to conclude that defense counsel was ineffective or that his overall performance was prejudicial to Appellant’s case.

Holding: The Court held that the sentence imposed as to Count V was in error. That sentence was vacated and the matter remanded to the district court for imposition of a lawful sentence. The Court also held that the evidence with respect to Count VII was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilt. The remand shall include the district court’s dismissal of Count VII. The Court concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in allowing the admission of prior bad acts evidence, and that defense counsel was not ineffective in advocating for his client with respect to that evidence. The remainder of the judgment and sentence was affirmed in all respects.

The Court cautioned that the procedures followed in the case were marginal and did not recommend they be used in other similar cases.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2z7hch .