Summary 2012 WY 70

Summary of Decision May 22, 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: CHRISTOPHER RAY COUNTS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Docket Number: S-11-0160

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465691

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Meri Geringer, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Geringe.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2012

Facts: Christopher Ray Counts was convicted of aggravated burglary and kidnapping. He raised several issues on appeal, but the Court found no reversible errors in the district court proceedings.

Issues: Mr. Counts presented these issues:

Did the court abuse its discretion by refusing to admit complete documents and recordings and by admitting altered documents?

Did the court abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Counts the right to cross-examine and impeach the witness against him in violation of his constitutional rights?

Did the court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a bill of particulars?

Did the court improperly instruct the jury?

Was the verdict inconsistent?

Was there sufficient evidence to support the verdict?

Holdings: After a thorough analysis and a finding of sufficient evidence to support the conviction on the charge of aggravated burglary, the Court affirmed the decision of the district court.

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the court.