Adam James Broussard v. State, 396 P.3d 1016

Broussard was convicted of aggravated robbery (also pled guilty to a firearm charge); appeal challenges pretrial 404(b) disclosure order and trial sanctions limiting cross-examination.
The State demanded pretrial notice of any party’s 404(b) evidence; Broussard refused, arguing the rule requires only prosecution disclosure.
District court ruled 404(b) notice applies to all parties, ordered defense disclosure, and warned undisclosed evidence could be excluded.
Broussard did not disclose; at trial the court curtailed cross-examination of several State witnesses as a sanction.
Jury convicted; Broussard appealed arguing the pretrial disclosure order and sanction violated evidentiary rules and his Sixth Amendment confrontation right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether W.R.E. 404(b) requires pretrial disclosure from defendants	State: rule applies to all parties and court may order disclosure	Broussard: rule’s notice provision applies only to prosecution; defendant need not pretrial disclose	Held: 404(b)’s notice requirement applies to the prosecution only; court erred ordering defendant to disclose pretrial
Whether court may use inherent authority to compel defendant 404(b) disclosure	State: court has discretion to manage proceedings and may require disclosure	Broussard: no statutory/rule basis; inherent authority insufficient against clear rule language	Held: trial-court inherent-authority argument insufficient given rule text; ordering disclosure was error
Whether limiting cross-examination as sanction for non-disclosure violated Confrontation Clause	State: sanction was legitimate remedy for noncompliance	Broussard: sanction infringed Sixth Amendment right to confront and impeach witnesses	Held: limiting some cross-examination (Lund) violated confrontation right, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether any error requires reversal of conviction	State: errors were harmless given strong case and cumulative testimony	Broussard: sanctions impaired ability to impeach key witnesses, warranting reversal	Held: errors harmless; conviction affirmed

Kovach v. State, 299 P.3d 97 (Wyo. 2013) (addressed defendant pretrial disclosure and improper cross-examination limits)
Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wyo. 2002) (firm preference for pretrial resolution of prosecution 404(b) issues)
Howard v. State, 42 P.3d 483 (Wyo. 2002) (pretrial notice protects due process for defendant when State uses 404(b))
Hannon v. State, 84 P.3d 320 (Wyo. 2004) (Confrontation Clause centers on right to effective cross-examination)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error framework for Confrontation Clause restrictions)
Williams v. State, 99 P.3d 432 (Wyo. 2004) (noting prejudicial nature of prior-bad-acts evidence)
Dean v. State, 865 P.2d 601 (Wyo. 1993) (limitations of jury instruction to cure misuse of prior-crimes evidence)
Sanchez v. State, 142 P.3d 1134 (Wyo. 2006) (courtroom-control authority does not justify broad pretrial discovery orders)