403 P.3d 1025
Wyo.2017Background
- Barrera was convicted of felony taking methamphetamine into a jail under Wyoming statute § 6-5-208; joinder with misdemeanor possession followed.
- Evidence showed meth found in Barrera’s pocket during booking after arrest for open-container violation and subsequent search.
- Officers warned Barrera multiple times that carrying drugs into the jail would be a felony; Barrera denied possessing drugs.
- District court denied Barrera’s motion to dismiss the felony charge, distinguishing between majority and minority views on voluntariness.
- Trial court and appellate court framed the gravamen as the voluntary act of bringing drugs into a jail, independent of arrestee status.
- Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed conviction, holding arrestees may voluntarily commit the offense and the booking area can be within the jail for purposes of § 6-5-208.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can an arrestee voluntarily take drugs into a jail? | Barrera: presence involuntary negates voluntariness. | State: voluntary act after warning; arrestee status does not negate voluntariness. | Yes; voluntary act by arrestee may support the offense. |
| Is the booking area part of the jail for § 6-5-208 purposes? | Barrera: booking area not part of jail, so no violation. | State: booking area is within jail, so elevates to felony under statute. | Booking area is within the scope of the jail for § 6-5-208. |
| Did the State’s theory/argument violate Barrera’s Fifth Amendment rights? | Barrera: prosecutorial use of silence or denial violated self-incrimination rights. | State: comments did not compel or imply guilt; not plain error. | No plain error; arguments did not improperly invoke silence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seymore v. State, 152 P.3d 401 (Wy. 2007) (general-intent crime requires voluntary conduct)
- Reilly v. State, 55 P.3d 1259 (Wy. 2002) (voluntariness for general-intent crimes depends on intent to perform the act)
- State v. Alvarado, 200 P.3d 1037 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) (minority view criticized; taking into jail involves voluntariness analysis)
- State v. Cargile, 916 N.E.2d 776 (Ohio 2009) (arrestee’s choice after warnings informs voluntariness)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 563 (Ky. 2010) (arrestee’s voluntary act after warnings supports conviction)
- Brown v. State, 89 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (arrestee’s voluntary act post-warning supports offense)