Summary 2008 WY 13

Summary of Decision issued February 8, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Reay v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 13

Docket Number: S-07-0053

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Ryan R. Roden, Deputy Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Apellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Public Defender.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Reay was convicted of burglary, aggravated kidnapping and battery against a household member. He claimed that the district court at trial allowed inadmissible testimony on three separate occasions. Reay’s counsel objected to the challenged testimony at trial so the Court’s review of the district court rulings was for abuse of discretion.
On direct examination the prosecution asked the victim to describe what happened on the morning she was attacked. Part of her description included her testimony about a statement made by Reay in the course of the incident which referred to an earlier abuse. The district court ruled that it was part of what happened in the incident and so it was not prohibited. The Court noted that the fact that the evidence involved Reay’s own statement did not exempt it from W.R.E. 404(b). The Court analyzed the statement and concluded that the testimony was too ambiguous to constitute evidence of uncharged misconduct and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
On direct examination by the prosecution, the victim was asked about her efforts prior to the attack to get her belongings from Reay’s apartment. The Court reviewed the testimony and stated that it was even more ambiguous than the previous example. The testimony did not amount to evidence of prior misconduct and so was not inadmissible under W.R.E. 404(b).
Next the Court considered the testimony from Mr. Haddon who related what the victim said after being rescued. After defense counsel objected, the district court offered a limiting instruction. Mr. Haddon’s comment was a direct assertion that there had been previous instances of violence against the victim by Reay. However, the district court stated that the evidence was so strong against Reay that the statement in question didn’t add much. The Court noted that their review of the record confirmed there was no reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to Reay without Mr. Haddon’s comment.
Finally, the Court considered Reay’s assertion that the district court improperly admitted evidence of prior misconduct without following the pretrial procedures mandated by Howard and Gleason. The Court determined the prosecution had not intended to introduce such evidence so the mandatory procedures did not apply. This was a case where a witness inadvertently mentioned such evidence and the district court promptly instructed the jury to disregard it.

Holding: The Court analyzed the statement from the victim and concluded that her testimony was too ambiguous to constitute evidence of uncharged misconduct. The testimony from the witness did not amount to evidence of prior misconduct and so was not inadmissible under W.R.E. 404(b). The Court’s review of the record confirmed there was no reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to Reay without Mr. Haddon’s comment. The prosecution had not intended to introduce prior misconduct evidence and the district court promptly instructed the jury to disregard it. The Court found no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/246ys2 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]