Summary 2011 WY 138
Summary of Decision September 29, 2011
[SPECIAL NOTE:
This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation
when it is issued. You should use this
citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the
opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation
to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph
number. The pinpoint citation in the
P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance
in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the
Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we
will provide any needed assistance]
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and
are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name:
Stastny v. State of Wyo.
Citation:
2011 WY 138
Docket Number: S-10-0206
Appeal from the District Court of County,
Honorable , Judge
Representing
Appellant (Defendant): Gregory J.
Blenkinsop, Senior Assistant Public Defender; Elisabeth M. W. Trefonas,
Assistant Public Defender. Argument by
Ms. Trefonas.
Representing Appellee
(Plaintiff): Gregory A. Phillips,
Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D.
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Senior
Assistant Attorney General. Argument by
Ms. Pojman
Date of
Decision: September 29, 2011
Facts: The
appellant was convicted of one count of sexual abuse of a minor and one count
of attempted sexual abuse of a minor. As to details of the encounter, when
allegations of the appellant’s alleged misconduct with the 12-year old victim
were made known, the appellant was forcefully ejected from the house and beaten
by several men who were present. Police
officers responded to reports of the beating, and the appellant spoke briefly
with them before he was taken to the hospital.
The officers continued to investigate the
matter and at some point during that same day, they obtained a search warrant
for the purpose of obtaining a “sexual assault kit” body search of the
appellant. They picked up the appellant later
that evening and took him to the local hospital for that purpose, where the
requisite evidence was collected by a nurse.
A couple days later, the appellant was formally
interviewed by the police just before going to a bond hearing. During that interview, he told the police
essentially the same version of events to which he would testify at trial,
namely that he had been drinking heavily and had passed out in the victim’s
room, and that he twice briefly became conscious, noticing someone, the victim,
seemingly sexually assaulting him.
The appellant filed a pretrial motion seeking
disclosure by the State of any evidence it intended to introduce under W.R.E.
404(b) or under W.R.E. 609. The State’s
response indicated the State’s intent to introduce evidence that the appellant
had a prior conviction in Iowa for “lascivious acts with a child.” The district court heard the motion during a
pretrial conference but never ruled upon the matter, and it does not appear
from the record that the appellant ever sought such a ruling. The State rested its case with no mention of
the prior conviction. During direct
examination by his own counsel, the conviction was raised. The State also
mentioned the conviction on cross-examination.
The Iowa conviction was not again mentioned in the record until a discussion
was had in chambers after a conference concerning jury instructions. Defense counsel did not use the opportunity
to place on the record any objection to admission of evidence of the prior
conviction, and did not ask for an instruction limiting its use to its intended
purposes under W.R.E. 609. The State did
not mention the prior conviction in its initial closing argument, nor in its
rebuttal closing.
Also at trial, the State proved that DNA
consistent with that of the appellant was found on the boy. At trial, Appellant testified to the same
version of events that he had told police. The prosecutor, during his closing
statement, referenced the appellant’s self-serving explanation for the DNA results.
The appellant challenged the district court’s
admission of evidence of a prior conviction, and he accused the prosecutor of
committing misconduct during closing argument by alleging that Appellant
fabricated his version of the events only after he learned of the DNA results. Finally, Appellant relied upon the cumulative
error doctrine.
Issues:
1) Whether the doctrine of invited error bared the appellant from
raising in this appeal issues concerning the admission of evidence of his prior
conviction. 2) Whether plain error occurred as a result of prosecutorial misconduct
during closing argument. 3) Whether the
doctrine of cumulative error required reversal of the appellant’s convictions.
Holdings: The Court found no error and affirmed. As to the first issue, the Court found that whether
or not it was error for the evidence to be admitted, its admission was not just
invited by defense counsel, it was accomplished by defense counsel.
As to the issue of
prosecutorial misconduct, the Court found that the questioned statement by the
prosecutor was not such a clear violation of a rule of law that the second element
of plain error analysis was met. The Court
observed that the evidence was not just that the appellant had learned of the
results of the “sexual assault kit” but the evidence also was that the
appellant was aware from the start that the “sexual assault kit” was obtained
for testing. In other words, his need to
explain away any results from those tests arose when the samples were
collected, not just when the test results were reported. Beyond that, and in the contest of the entire
trial, the Court could not say that the appellant was unfairly prejudiced by
the language at issue.
Finally, the Court
concluded that there being no error, there was no cumulative error.
Because the admission
of evidence of the appellant’s prior felony conviction, if error at all, was
invited error, and prosecutorial misconduct did not occur during closing
argument, the Court affirmed.
J. VOIGT delivered the opinion for the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment