Summary 2007 WY 183

Summary of Decision issued November 15, 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: Lawrence v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 183

Docket Number: S-07-0065

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming State Public Defender Program, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael M. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and improper character evidence of prior drug use by defense witnesses.

Facts/Discussion: A jury convicted Appellant of attempting to deliver methamphetamine in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(i) and § 35-7-1042.
Standard of Review: Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and are not disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. To the extent that no objection was interposed by defense counsel, the plain error standard applied. The burden was on Appellant.
Testimony relating to Jeff Mathson’s drug use - DCI Agent Justin Mathson’s testimony: The Court agreed with the State that the question was permissible for redirect in the circumstances. The prosecutor limited his inquiry to the single question and therefore did not cross the line between permissible inquiry and prosecutorial overkill. Once Appellant’s counsel opened the door to the line of questioning, he could not legitimately complain when the prosecutor went through it and asked the witness to clarify his cross-examination testimony.
Appellant alleged that DCI Agent Mathson’s utterance constituted improper character evidence but failed to quote the text of the rule of evidence or to provide legal analysis of either the rule or the Blumhagen holding and their application to the DCI Agent’s utterance.
Jeff Mathson’s testimony: Jeff Mathson testified in Appellant’s case-in-chief where defense counsel questioned him regarding his knowledge of another witness’s drug use. The Court agreed with the State’s argument that interest, relationship, bias and corrupt testimonial intent may always be shown either on cross-examination or by extrinsic testimony. The Court held that the trial judge’s relevancy ruling was correct.
Appellant also challenged the admissibility of Mathson’s prior drug use on an evidentiary ground not raised at trial. He invoked W.R.E. 608(b) without quoting the rule’s text, and Blumhagen, concluding that the prosecutor’s question had only the purpose to imply he was not credible in his testimony. The Court agreed with the State that there is a distinction between evidence that impeaches by proof of a witness’s character or disposition for veracity, or the lack thereof, and evidence which establishes a lack of credibility through a showing of such things as bias or undue influence. Witness bias is a proper subject for impeachment. The thrust of Appellant’s direct examination of Jeff Mathson was that he had no bias. The prosecutor’s question and Mathson’s answer revealed evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that he was not an impartial witness. The Court held that the admission of prior drug use was not plain error.
Testimony relating to Rebecca Pauly’s drug use: Appellant’s argument on this issue was the same as used on the issue of Mr. Mathson’s testimony. For the same reasons, the Court held the trial judge did not err in admitting Ms. Pauly’s prior drug use testimony.

Holding: The cross-examination testimony was not extrinsic evidence and W.R.E. 608(b) did not apply. The Court held that evidence of a witness’s partiality is always relevant.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yrbofb .