Summary 2009 WY 71

Summary of Decision issued May 29, 2009

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

Case Name: Ceja v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 71

Docket Number: S-08-0180

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge.

Representing Appellant Ceja: Diane M. Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee State: 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: Ceja was convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor by possessing child pornography. Ceja challenged the district court’s ruling that the State did not violate its discovery obligation when it withheld Det. Owens’ notes.

A criminal defendant’s right to discovery is governed by statute, rule and court order. In the instant case, there was no written or recorded statement. Instead the State offered Det. Owens’ testimony that Ceja had verbally admitted the pornographic materials belonged to him. The Court noted it had addressed a similar issue in Dennis v. State. Rule 16 was designed to provide the defendant with sufficient information to make an informed decision about a plea, to allow the court to rule on admissibility motions before trial, to minimize prejudicial surprise at trial, and to generally increase the efficiency of litigation. Neither the rules nor due process require the disclosure of the substance of the defendant’s statement in a particular form or manner.

Conclusion: The State disclosed Ceja’s oral statements on a number of occasions prior to trial and there was no indication the disclosure was inaccurate or varied in any material fashion form the testimony provided at trial. In accordance with Dennis and the federal cases, the State complied with Rule 16 by disclosing the “substance of” Ceja’s verbal statements; he was not entitled to have that information provided in a specific form or manner or to receive a copy of the officer’s notes in pre-trial discovery. The State provided Ceja with sufficient notice of the statements it intended to use at trial to satisfy the purposes of the Rule. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Ceja’s motion in limine to exclude the detective’s testimony about his admissions.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/n7jx4v .

[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.]