Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Summary 2008 WY 114

Summary of Decision issued September 30, 2008

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

Case Name: Proffit v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 114

Docket Number: S-07-025

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham M. Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant Proffit raised five issues in the appeal of his conviction on eight counts of third-degree sexual assault.

State Witness Testimony Regarding Polygraph: The transcript from the trial provided the record of the exchange with the State’s witness who talked about Appellant’s decision to decline the polygraph test. Wyoming adheres to the rule that it is error for the State to introduce evidence that a defendant has refused to take a polygraph test.
Cross-Examination as to Whether Other Witnesses Lied:
The Appellant raised the issue of improper questioning techniques in regard to the questioning of his expert witness and in regard to his own cross-examination. There were no trial objections to the line of questioning asking witnesses whether others were lying. The Court quoted extensively from Jensen v. State as well as Beaugureau v. State. The admonition against asking the appellant whether other witnesses lied applies equally to asking any witness whether another witness has lied. Such questions invade the province of the jury to determine witness credibility. By bringing in the testimony from the other trials, and quizzing the appellant as to whether those witnesses were lying, the prosecutor was allowed improperly to bolster B.C.’s credibility. The Court considered the errors together with all of the other errors that occurred in the trial of this case and in doing so, was not convinced that absent the errors, the verdict might not have been more favorable to the appellant.
Cross-Examination as to Prior Convictions:
In Wyoming, the courts have given effect to the presumption in favor of exclusion where the witness is the accused by holding that a testifying defendant is required to give answers only as to whether he had previously been convicted of a felony, as to what the felony was, and as to when the conviction was had. A review of the record showed the prosecutor “hearsayed in” testimony from two murder trials, told the jury that the other juries had convicted Appellant of those crimes, and then told the jury that B.C. was murdered because he was going to be the witness in the present trial. The Court considered whether Appellant’s direct examination opened the door to the prosecutor’s questions. It determined that the jury’s focus was shifted from the facts of the present case to the facts of the two prior murders. The district court never made a determination that the probative value of the evidence of the prior convictions outweighed its prejudicial effect. The Court determined that was plain error requiring reversal.
Shifting the Burden of Proof to Appellant:
The Court reviewed the prosecutor’s argument and stated it was not so far outside the realm of appropriate argument as to be misconduct. Appellant testified and the prosecutor’s statements were comments upon that testimony.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
The defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. The defendant must also show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
Failing to Make Appropriate Objections:
The Court reviewed the record in the instant case observing the tenet that trial counsel is to be given the benefit of the doubt when considering whether a “failure” to object is actually a strategy. The Court could not accept counsel’s performance as adequate. It had no confidence that the guilty verdicts were based upon the admissible evidence and could not countenance defense counsel’s failure to object or the decision not to object to the highly prejudicial and objectionable testimony that was admitted.
Inquiring Into the Investigators’ Opinions as to Appellant’s Credibility:
Appellant argued that not only did defense counsel fail to object when the prosecutor elicited the investigators’ opinions that Appellant was guilty, but that he emphasized those opinions by further inquiry about them during cross. The Court concluded the issue was part of the cumulative ineffectiveness of defense counsel.
Failure to Demand Notice of or Object to Uncharged Misconduct Evidence:
The admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence should be tested before trial – preferably via a defendant’s demand for notice of the State’s intent to introduce such evidence, the State’s identification of such evidence and a pretrial hearing. The State produced uncharged misconduct evidence at trial including the evidence of a sexual assault by Appellant upon B.C. outside Campbell County; evidence of a breach-of-the-peace incident at a convenience store; evidence of Appellant’s involvement in a homosexual child pornography ring; and evidence of the Forquer and B.C. murders. It was the Court’s perception that no reasonable attorney in the instant situation would forfeit the opportunity to prevent the jury from learning about the different instances of uncharged misconduct.
District Court’s Response to Jury Question:
The jury asked the judge a question regarding State Exhibit 2 which was the Judgment Upon Jury Verdict holding Appellant guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of B.C. The district court responded stating that State’s Exhibit 2 was a piece of evidence which should be given as much weight as the jurors deemed appropriate. The district court’s response could only be justified if defense counsel’s failure or decision not to object made the document admissible beyond the limited purpose of impeaching credibility.

Holding:
Plain error occurred when a State witness testified that Appellant had refused to take a polygraph examination, when the State questioned Appellant and one of Appellant’s witnesses as to whether other witnesses were lying, and when the State improperly used prior conviction evidence in the cross-examination of Appellant. Plain error did not occur when the State, during rebuttal closing argument pointed out the lack of evidence supporting Appellant’s theory of the case. Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to make numerous meritorious objections to evidence, when defense counsel invited prejudicial error by inquiring into the investigators’’ opinions as to Appellant’s credibility and guilt, by failing to demand notice of uncharged misconduct evidence and failing to object to the introduction of such evidence, and by failing to obtain a limiting instruction that would have prevented the jury from using prior conviction evidence as substantive evidence of guilt.

Reversed, remanded.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3ml2ct .

[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.]

Free Online Seminar: Statutes at Your Fingertips on Westlaw

For those of you who have Westlaw access, here's a free training opportunity from Westlaw.


Make the most of your research sessions by signing up for this online seminar. You'll learn how StatutesPlus and Graphical Statutes on Westlaw help you to find the statutory information you need.

Some tips you'll learn include:
  • How to make the most of search tools to quickly find the statute you need
  • How to use the Links tab to locate documents that analyze your statute
  • How to use a visual outline of prior, current and future versions of a statute
  • How to find court cases that negatively affect a statute
Plus, since it's a live, interactive seminar, you'll have a chance to ask questions. Please feel free to forward this e-mail to colleagues that may be interested in the session.

When:

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 - 10:00 AM CST
Thursday, October 9, 2008 - 2:00 PM CST

Please register by October 6.

If you're not available for this seminar, or if you'd prefer a one-on-one teleconference regarding your specific research needs, please call 1-800-328-0109 to speak with your dedicated attorney trainer for training.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Summary 2008 WY 113

Summary of Decision issued September 29, 2008

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

Case Name: Dollarhide v. Bancroft

Citation: 2008 WY 113

Docket Number: S-07-0236

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Robert E. Schroth, Schroth & Schroth, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Scott P. Klosterman, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Dollarhide (Appellant) challenged the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. He was injured while working for Bancroft Construction, Inc.

Failure to Comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01: Appellees, Bancroft and Shattuck claimed the appeal should be dismissed because Dollarhide failed to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01. They contend that Dollarhide violated the rule because the title page of his brief identified the filing party as John rather than Jack Dollarhide and because the brief’s appendix does not contain a copy of the order appealed from or a statement of costs. The Court concluded that Dollarhide violated the rule in those respects. Appellees sought dismissal of the appeal for these violations. The Court noted that dismissal was not required in the case and declined to do so.
Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution:
From the beginning, the case moved slowly. The scheduling conference was not held until nineteen months after the complaint was filed. The order issued after the conference established deadlines and Dollarhide appeared to have complied with all the deadlines. The final pretrial conference was set but never held, so that no trial date was set. Instead of holding the final pretrial conference, a motion hearing on summary judgment was held and then the district court took the matter under advisement. Six months later, the court issued an order denying summary judgment. Nine more months passed with no apparent action from the parties or the district court. When Appellees filed another motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, Dollarhide informed the court that he had tried to arrange mediation of the dispute and had engaged in ongoing settlement negotiations.

Holding: The district court warned the parties that the case would be set on a fast track. Dollarhide complied with all of the deadlines imposed in the scheduling order, and in accordance with that order was ready for trial by the time of the final pretrial conference. Due to no fault of his, the final pretrial conference was never held and never rescheduled and no trial date was set. Despite the slow pace of the litigation, the district court found no prejudice resulting from any lack of prosecution. Under those circumstances, the district court could not reasonably conclude that this was the sort of extreme situation justifying dismissal for lack of prosecution.

Reversed, remanded.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/49cfje .

[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.]

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Summary of 2008 WY 112

Summary of Decision issued September 25, 2008

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

Case Name: Testerman v. Testerman

Citation: 2008 WY 112

Docket Number: S-08-0006

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Mary Elizabeth Galvan, Mary Elizabeth Galvan, PC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Raymond D. Macchia, Macchia & Assoc., LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The appeal arose from the divorce proceedings of Ms. Testerman (Mother) and Mr. Testerman (Father). The district court awarded primary custody of their daughter to Mother, and provided visitation to Father with the aim that each parent would spend approximately equal time with the child. The district court’s express purpose was to prevent Mother from moving to California.
In the divorce decree, the district court stated that it was in the best interests of the child for Mother to have primary custody. Given the evidence, the Court saw no abuse of discretion in its decision to grant primary custody to Mother.
The district court prepared a “Parenting Plan” which was set up after reviewing the Arizona parenting plan. The district court’s term “parenting time” was meant to be synonymous with the term “visitation” as used in the Wyoming statutes. The “Parenting Plan’ was such that initially, the child would be residing with Mother with visitation from Father. Gradually, Father’s visitation increased so that by the time the child entered school, she would spend four days with each parent alternately. The Court noted the arrangement seemed inconsistent with the district court’s award of primary custody to Mother and that it seemed more like joint custody. The Court has repeatedly said that joint custody was not favored by the Court absent good reason. The Court has emphasized that the success of joint custody depends upon the parties’ ability to communicate and agree on the matters relevant to the child’s welfare. The record in the instant case cast doubt on the Testermans’ ability to do that. The district court articulated only one reason for imposing visitation as it did: to allow Father and the child to develop and maintain a relationship. It was not sufficient to justify the de facto joint custody imposed by the district court. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in ordering this custody and visitation arrangement.
The district court’s custody and visitation arrangement also impinged on Mother’s rights to travel and relocate providing that if either parent gave notice of intent to move from Laramie County, it may be considered as a change of circumstances sufficient to give it jurisdiction to consider a custody modification. The Court stated that their precedent is quite clear that relocation, by itself, cannot be a substantial and material change in circumstances sufficient to justify reopening a custody order.

Holding: The district court imposed de facto joint custody without establishing the good reasons needed to support the arrangement. The sole reason given for the arrangement was to keep Mother in Cheyenne which violated her constitutional rights. The district court abused its discretion and violated legal principles in establishing the custody and visitation arrangement.
The Court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant primary custody to Mother. It reversed the decision concerning Father’s visitation, specifically paragraphs 13.c. through 13.l. of the Amended Decree of Divorce and remanded to the district court.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/4zfan3 .

[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.]

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Summary 2008 WY 111

Summary of Decision issued September 23, 2008

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

Case Name: Cook v. Eddy

Citation: 2008 WY 111

Docket Number: S-07-0272

Appeal from the District Court of Niobrara County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellant: James A. Eddington, Torrington, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Frank D. Peasley, Douglas, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: After a bench trial, the district court quieted title to approximately 40 acres of Cook’s land to Eddy. Cook appealed claiming the district court erred by ruling that Eddy had quieted title to the property by adverse possession. Eddy and Cook own adjoining mountainous properties in Niobrara County. The fence that separated their properties did not follow the east-west township line; it was north of the line and, accordingly, enclosed 40.44 acres of Cook’s land inside Eddy’s pasture. Eddy has used the property for grazing his cattle since he contracted to purchase his property in 1988.
To establish adverse possession, the claiming party must show actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession of another’s property which is hostile and under claim of right or color of title. Eddy testified he occupied the disputed land each year by allowing his cattle to graze it and using it to access another pasture. Cook attempted to meet his burden by establishing that Eddy’s use of the disputed property was permissive because the fence was built off line as a matter of convenience. The district court concluded the fence was a boundary fence and not a fence of convenience because there was an old path cleared along the correct boundary; the fence departed severely from the property boundary; the fence runs in three straight sections with only small deviations within those sections to accommodate trees or rocks; and in general the route of the fence is across as irregular terrain as the route of the correct boundary. The Court concluded that based on the record, the district court’s finding that the fence was a boundary fence rather than a fence of convenience was not clearly erroneous. Cook also argued that he asserted ownership by paying taxes on it, spraying for grasshoppers, leasing the mineral rights, and by cutting posts and poles and repairing the fence.

Holding: The record supported the district court’s determination that Eddy was entitled to a presumption that he adversely possessed the property.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/4rr6oh .

[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.]

Summary 2008 WY 110

Summary of Decision issued September 18, 2008

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

Case Name: Coffinberry v. Bd. of County Comm., Hot Springs, WY

Citation: 2008 WY 110

Docket Number: S-08-0053

Appeal from the District Court of Hot Springs County, the Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Richard Coffinberry, Pro Se.

Representing Appellee: Jerry D. Williams, Hot Springs County Attorney, Thermopolis, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The Board of County Commissioners of Hot Springs County, Wyoming, issued and advertised a Request for Proposals for Lease and Management of Airport Facilities. The Board received three proposals, including one from Coffinberry. When the Board did not accept his proposal, he filed in the district court a Petition for Declaratory Judgment in which he sought monetary damages in the amount of his bid, a declaration that the contract awarded was null and void , and a determination of his “rights, status or other legal relations as allowed by § 1-37-103.”
Coffinberry’s Petition does not allege or reflect compliance with the required claims procedures contained in the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. Therefore, the Court gave no further consideration to the claim for monetary damages.
As to the second basis for the summary judgment, that Coffinberry failed to identify a particular contract, ordinance, statute, or constitutional provision upon which the district court could exercise its authority to declare the appellant’s rights, the Court came to the same conclusion as did the district court. The affidavit of the County Clerk set forth the details of the notice and advertisement process involved in regard to the airport project, and stated that no contract was made with Coffinberry. Coffinberry provided no affidavits, deposition testimony, or other sworn evidence in support of his own motion that the contract signed by the Board should be declared null and void as violative of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 10-5-101(a)(iv).

Holding: The record presented no disputed issues of material fact. The Board was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because appellant provided neither citation to pertinent authority nor cogent argument to establish that as a person whose lease proposal was not accepted, he had personal rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 10-5-101(a)(iv) that could be determined or declared under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-37-103.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/4fr8kv .

[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.]

Check out our tags in a cloud (from Wordle)!