Summary 2012 WY 50

Summary of Decision April 5, 2012

[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.  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:  MIACHEL G. MAIER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S‑11‑0070

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465308

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant):  Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.  Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stewart M. Young, Faculty Director, Joshua B. Taylor, Student Director, Gregory Asay, Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Program.  Argument by Mr. Asay.

Date of Decision: April 5, 2012

Facts: Miachel G. Maier, the appellant, was convicted of both first-degree and attempted first-degree sexual assault.  He appealed those convictions, arguing that he was prejudiced by the admission of hearsay testimony and by prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.  He also argued that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel at trial due to his attorney’s failure to object to either the hearsay testimony or the prosecutor’s closing remarks.

Issues: Whether the district court committed plain error by admitting hearsay testimony by one of the state’s witnesses.  Whether the prosecutor commit misconduct in the presentation of his closing argument. Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the hearsay testimony and to the prosecutor’s statements in his closing argument.

Holdings:  The appellant argued his convictions should be reversed because he was prejudiced by the admission of hearsay testimony and by prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.  Although the Court agreed that inadmissible hearsay was presented to the jury, the appellant was not prejudiced as a result.  The appellant’s own testimony provided the jury with sufficient evidence upon which to convict.  The prosecutor’s statements in his closing argument represented reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence as elicited at trial and fairly summarized the main facts of the case.  The appellant also argued that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel for failure to object to the hearsay testimony and to the prosecutor’s closing argument.  The appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel’s performance was so deficient as to require reversal of his conviction.  Affirmed.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.