Summary 2010 WY 123

Summary of Decision issued August 31, 2010

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

Case Name: Budder v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 123

Docket Number: S-09-0241

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.

Representing Budder: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, State Public Defender Program.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Student Intern, Prosecution Assistance Clinical Program.

Facts/Discussion: Budder was convicted of burglary and wrongful taking or disposing of property. He challenged a jury instruction he argued relieved the State of proving all elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

The instruction used was virtually identical to an instruction approved by the Court in Vanvorst v. State. In Vanvorst, the defendant was arrested driving a stolen vehicle. Budder accepts that the instruction reflects a correct statement of law in cases where the defendant is caught in actual possession of recently stolen property. He argued it was nonsensical when applied to his case because of his denial of possession of the recently stolen cash. Instructions to a jury are to be written with the particular facts and legal theories of each case in mind. The applicability of an instruction hinges in part on whether the instruction is supported by an appropriate evidentiary basis. The State’s evidence against Budder included the testimony of Fox (who returned some of the stolen money to the victim) and other corroborating and circumstantial evidence. The evidence presented sufficed to support the giving of the instruction to the jury.
Additionally, Budder claimed it was improper for the trial court to give the instruction because there was no rational connection between the evidence and the inference. The focus should be on the relationship between his actual possession of the stolen cash, should the jury find such possession was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the inference that Budder was involved in the theft of the cash.

Conclusion: The instruction was appropriate under the evidence introduced at trial by the State. The instruction permitted the jury to infer Budder was involved in the theft of cash if it first found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Budder possessed the cash, and that other facts and circumstances also supported the inference. The instruction did not deny Budder his defense. The instructions as a whole also conformed to the mandates of W.R.E. 303 by informing the jury that the State bore the burden of proving every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/234s3jr .

[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.]