Summary 2009 WY 129

Summary of Decision issued October 22, 2009

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

Case Name: Palmer v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 129

Docket Number: S-08-0252

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

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

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Palmer sought review of his four convictions for sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Palmer raised issues similar to those raised in May v. State and Crain v. State. The Court applied the same reasoning in the instant case and rejected both of Palmer’s challenges to the affected statutes.
Palmer also sought review of the trial court’s admission of uncharged misconduct evidence which had not been a part of the State’s original W.R.E. 404(b) notice. One of Palmer’s principle objections to the testimony was that it was developed for use at the hearing into a stalking/protection petition filed by the victim’s parents and was not generated by the criminal charges that Palmer faced.
Palmer was given notice that Maxfield would testify and what the gist of her testimony would be. The witness testified that Palmer and the mother of Palmer’s child recruited her to give Palmer an alibi. Palmer raised no pretrial objection below. The State did not perceive the testimony as coming under the umbrella of Rule 404(b) and the witness was not included in the State’s 404(b) notice to Palmer. The Rule is aimed at excluding character evidence when it is used for an improper purpose while at the same time providing for its admission within exceptions. One such exception is evidence which completes the whole story.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the district court would have been correct in admitting the disputed evidence on the basis that W.R.E. 404(b) analysis does not apply to post-crime “guilty mind” evidence such as that offered by the State in the instant case.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ykvq46w .

[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.]