Summary 2010 WY 1

Summary of Decision issued January 4, 2010

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

Case Name: Budig v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 1

Docket Number: S-09-0038

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge.

Representing Appellant Budig: Harry G. Bondi of Harry G. Bondi Law Offices, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

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

Facts/Discussion: Budig challenged his conviction for third-degree sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor. Budig asserts that his constitutionally protected right to confrontation was violated and that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim witnesses.
Right to confrontation: The Court noted their summary of the limits a court may place on cross-examination in Miller v. State. In order for there to be a violation of the right of confrontation, a defendant must show more than just a denial of the ability to ask specific questions of a particular witness. A defendant’s right is not unfettered but subject to the trial court’s discretion to prevent questioning that was repetitive or of marginal relevance. The trial court held a motion hearing regarding the character evidence he intended to address during cross-examination. The Court stated that since none of the evidence was directly related to Budig, its relevance was marginal and its probative value limited. Past sexual conduct evidence falls into the class of evidence the rape shield law was specifically designed to exclude. Budig was given the opportunity to challenge the victims’ credibility, motives, and biases using other admissible evidence.
Improper vouch for credibility of victims: Budig asserted that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim witnesses in statements he made during closing argument. After reviewing the record provided on appeal and particularly the trial transcripts, the Court found that the prosecutor’s comments relating the victims’ actions to the general behaviors described by the expert were not tantamount to vouching for the victims’ credibility. The statements informed the jury about the relevance of the testimony and suggested how that testimony might assist the jury in determining the facts at issue. Relating the general behaviors described by the expert witness to the specific behaviors exhibited by the victims was important to effective prosecution in the instant case because one defense strategy was to argue that the victims’ behaviors were inconsistent with the allegations made.

Conclusion: The Court held that Budig’s constitutionally protected right to confrontation was not abridged when the district court refused to allow him to question the victims about prior alleged sexual conduct or about specific instances showing the victims’ mean or manipulative character traits, which instances did not involve Budig. The prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the victims’ credibility during closing argument.

Affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y8gcn4q .

[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.]