Summary 2010 WY 43

Summary of Decision issued April 15, 2010

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

Case Name: Luftig v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 43

Docket Number: S-09-0101

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge.

Representing Luftig: Galen Woelk of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.

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

Facts/Discussion: Luftig was convicted of burglary for entering a vehicle with intent to commit larceny. He appealed claiming the district court committed plain error by allowing the admission of improper testimony about a series of Colorado car thefts for which he pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated motor vehicle theft and that his trial counsel was ineffective.

Evidentiary error: Luftig argued that Officer Bruce’s testimony included evidence that was not admitted in the district court’s pre-trial 404(b) ruling and that much of the evidence was subject to objection for reasons such as hearsay or insufficient foundation. The State did not seriously contest Luftig’s assertion that a good deal of the testimony was inadmissible. The Court considered the prejudicial effect of allowing in the inadmissible evidence in the context of the district court’s uncontested pre-trial 404(b) ruling and the other trial evidence. The properly admitted evidence was sufficiently strong to overcome any prejudice which the inadmissible evidence may have caused.
Ineffective assistance of counsel: The Court evaluated counsel’s performance determining whether his actions could be considered sound trial strategy. It analyzed defense counsel from his perspective at the time of trial. Defense counsel’s strategy appeared to be one of defusing the prejudice that would result from the information about Luftig’s previous conviction in Colorado for a similar crime. When defense counsel did not object to testimony about acts that were not included in the 404(b) ruling, it did not appear that he was following a sound trial strategy and his performance was deficient. However, Luftig was not entitled to reversal because he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object.

Conclusion: The properly admitted evidence was sufficiently strong to overcome any prejudice which the inadmissible evidence may have caused. Luftig was not entitled to have his conviction reversed because he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to the inadmissible testimony.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y5l2zez .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]