Summary 2009 WY 72

Summary of Decision issued June 2, 2009

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

Case Name: Wimbley v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 72

Docket Number: S-08-0174

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

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

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Wimbley was convicted and sentenced on one felony count of obtaining property by false pretenses. He asserted that the district court improperly admitted evidence of other misconduct and evidence that was unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded. Joseph Madden of Torrington Livestock Markets, LLC purchased and paid for pipe from Wimbley but never received the product.

Testimony from others who had dealings with Wimbley: At trial, the State presented testimony from four persons whose experiences with Wimbley were similar to the victim in the instant case. The district court considered Wimbley’s argument that the evidence was unnecessarily cumulative and decided that when intent is at issue, evidence of several, similar prior acts may be admissible. The record indicated that the State had evidence of four other similar occasions but chose to present as evidence only four witnesses who talked about three prior transactions.
Testimony of parole officer and jail official: At trial, the district court allowed testimony from Wimbley’s parole officer in Illinois to verify information about Wimbley’s identity including his employment, his social security number and his phone number. The district court provided both oral and written limiting instructions to the jury regarding the testimony from the parole officer. The Sergeant from Yuma County, Colorado testified to verify that Wimbley had been incarcerated which explained how he had recordings of Wimbley’s telephone calls.

Conclusion: The Court agreed with the district court that evidence from four witnesses was not unnecessarily repetitive or unduly prejudicial. The Court agreed with the district court that the prejudicial effect of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence at trial.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/qgs37s .

[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.]