Summary 2013 WY 41

Summary of Decision April 9, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DOUGLAS HOWARD CRAFT v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0107

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Martens.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2013

Facts: Douglas Howard Craft was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second degree sexual abuse of a minor upon his three daughters. He appealed, claiming the prosecutor committed misconduct when he questioned a witness about an exhibit that was not admitted as evidence, there was a fatal variance between the charges in the information and the charges proven at trial and the district court abused its discretion when it prohibited his expert witness from testifying about his opinion on what type of sexual abuse allegations were made in this case.

Issues: Mr. Craft presents the following issues on appeal:

1. Did prosecutorial misconduct occur when the prosecutor questioned witnesses on an exhibit he did not intend to submit into evidence?

2. Concerning two of the victims, PC and AXC, was there… a fatal variance between the charges alleged and the charges proven at trial?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it prohibited Mr. Craft’s expert witness from providing an opinion as to which class the allegation of sexual abuse falls within?

The State presents the same issues but phrased differently.

Holdings: The Court concluded that Mr. Craft was not prejudiced by the identification procedure because sufficient other evidence of Mr. Craft’s identity as the perpetrator was presented at trial. There was no variance between the charges alleged and the charges proven at trial; the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony, which fell outside the range of permissible opinion testimony. Finding no error, the Court affirmed.

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

[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]