Summary 2009 WY 133

Summary of Decision issued November 4, 2009

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

Case Name: Bromley v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 133

Docket Number: S-08-0254

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellant Bromley: Jason M. Tangeman of Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

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: Bromley killed Jason Voss with a shotgun in 2007. He was charged with second-degree murder, but convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter.
District court’s revision of the trial transcript: On its face, W.R.A.P. 3.04 allows the district court to settle the record whenever any difference arises as to whether the record is accurate; it does not require a motion from one of the parties. Bromley did not suggest that the district court engaged in intentional falsification which left the question of whether the district court’s determination was “plainly unreasonable.” The Court stated it would be hard-pressed to find plainly unreasonable the district court’s recollection of the testimony as having mentioned methamphetamine use when the appellant also stated that such was the testimony.
Admission of evidence of methamphetamine use: Bromley gave a statement to his cellmate while he was incarcerated in Carbon County jail indicating that he had been coming down from drug use at the time of the shooting. The Court stated that Bromley’s statements were clearly admissions by a party opponent under W.R.E. 801(d)(2) and were therefore not hearsay. While they also may have related to uncharged misconduct, they were relevant to prove his state of mind at the time of the shooting. The statements were more probative of his state of mind than any other available evidence and were not unduly prejudicial. The Court noted that even without the methamphetamine evidence, there was sufficient evidence presented for the jury to have found Bromley guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of involuntary manslaughter.
Constitutionality of Second-degree murder statute: In the district court, Bromley filed a motion alleging the second-degree murder statute to be facially unconstitutional. Because Bromley was acquitted of second-degree murder, the Court found the issue to be moot and declined to address it.

Conclusion: Bromley failed to prove that the district court acted unreasonably in ordering the trial transcript to be amended. Bromley also failed to prove that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony about the appellant’s jailhouse confession, or the testimony of Evans as to methamphetamine. Once Bromley’s admission of methamphetamine use was admitted, there existed a foundation for Evans’ testimony about methamphetamine use. Bromley’s argument that Wyoming’s second-degree murder statute was unconstitutional was rendered moot when the jury acquitted him of that charge.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ykpbo3x .

[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.]