Summary 2010 WY 108

Summary of Decision issued August 3, 2010

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

Case Name: Gomez v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 108

Docket Number: S-09-0162

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

Representing Gomez: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; and Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Gomez challenged the district court’s decision to deny his motion to transfer matters that underlay the appeal to the juvenile court. Gomez was convicted of felony interference with a police officer as well as three misdemeanors; youthful driver with detectable alcohol, reckless driving, and failure to stop vehicle where accident involved death or personal injuries. Gomez was convicted of all the charged crimes. Gomez also challenged the constitutionality of the statute which established the jurisdiction of the juvenile court; claims the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for felony interference with a police officer; asserts that the district court abused its discretion in disallowing evidence from Gomez’s expert witness; and that the district court failed to instruct the jury as to the effect of Gomez’s intoxication at the time the crime was committed.

Constitutionality of juvenile court statutes: Gomez conceded the issue was not raised in the district court. It has been argued that juvenile court procedures used to prosecute children as adults violate Apprendi because adult prosecution results in an increased sentence based upon facts not submitted to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court concluded the error asserted was not considered in the district court and was not reflected at all by the record on appeal. Further, it did not transgress a clear and unequivocal rule of law.
Refusal of motion to transfer to juvenile court an abuse of discretion: The prosecuting attorney as well as the district court must consider the factors set out in § 14-6-237(a) and (b) as part of the decision-making process. The factors included: the seriousness of the alleged offense to the community (a violent attack on a uniformed police officer); whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner (as alleged by the State, it was all of those); whether alleged offense was against person or property (violent attack on police officer); number four did not apply to the instant case; the sophistication or maturity of the juvenile, his home and school environment, previous history and contacts with law enforcement (long and detailed criminal history); prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (the reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation of a juvenile is just as likely in felony adult court as in juvenile court); and the defendant would be 18 when the case went to trial. The Court reviewed the record and concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Sufficiency of the evidence – attempt to cause bodily harm: Gomez contended the caption of the instruction contained the word “attempt” although the elements portion of the instruction did not which made the crime at issue a “specific intent” crime. He also argued that the evidence failed to prove that his specific intent was to cause bodily harm to the officer. The Court deemed the variance between the caption and the instruction was an error that was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the circumstances of the case. The specific enumeration of the elements in the body of the instruction informed the jury of the evidence the State was required to produce in order to justify a conviction.
Trial court’s limitation of expert witness testimony: The expert’s theory was that Gomez’s view of the officer was obscured by trees, darkness, and the snowy/rainy weather. The Court saw no indication in the record that the district court frustrated the expert witness’s ability to fully explain his take on the accident scene.
Instruction on voluntary intoxication: Gomez’s defense was that his view was so obstructed that he could not see the officer or his car – not that he was too intoxicated to form specific intent. If he had defended on the basis that he was too intoxicated to form specific intent then he would have been entitled to such an instruction.

Conclusion: Although the Court’s review of most of the issues was limited by the plain error rule, the Court held there was not a clear and unequivocal rule of law that would persuade it to decide that the Wyoming juvenile court statute runs afoul of the rule articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez’s motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. The State’s evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of Gomez for intentionally causing bodily harm to a peace office in the performance of his duties. The testimony of Gomez’s expert witness was not curtailed in a way that constituted either an abuse of discretion by the district court, or a violation of Gomez’s right to compulsory process. Finally, the district court did not commit error in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury with respect to voluntary intoxication.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2u9a24h .

[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.]