442 P.3d 1287
Wyo.2019Background
- Bittleston and Skinner had a short intimate relationship; after she ended it, he sent hundreds of harassing text messages and voicemails.
- Skinner discovered a torn page missing from her personal journal and later received from Bittleston a photo of that page; other items (tip money, a key fob) were missing.
- Police responded to reports; officers later stopped Bittleston during a traffic stop on March 12, 2017; body‑worn camera recorded a ~2.5 minute interaction in which he admitted sending many texts and discussed the journal page.
- State charged Bittleston with felony stalking and burglary; a 3‑day jury trial resulted in convictions on both counts and concurrent 3–6 year sentences.
- On appeal Bittleston argued (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements made during the stop (Miranda), (2) the court should have suppressed those statements sua sponte, (3) the body‑cam video was unfairly prejudicial under W.R.E. 403, and (4) convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bittleston) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress custodial statements | Counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements made during traffic stop because Miranda warnings were not given | Even if statements were suppressible, the remaining evidence (texts, possession of journal page, corroboration) was sufficient; no prejudice from omission | No prejudice; claim fails (convictions would stand without those statements) |
| 2. Sua sponte suppression of Miranda statements on appeal | Statements were obtained during custodial interrogation and should be excluded | Motion to suppress must be raised pretrial; no good cause shown to excuse procedural default | Appeal of Miranda claim barred for failure to raise pretrial (no good cause) |
| 3. Admission of body‑cam video under W.R.E. 403 | Video was cumulative and Officer Parmely made inaccurate statements on it, making it unfairly prejudicial | Video corroborated amount of texting, was brief, and defense could cross‑examine; probative value outweighed prejudice | No abuse of discretion; video admissible (marginal probative value, limited prejudice) |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for burglary and stalking convictions | Evidence insufficient to prove unlawful entry (burglary) and specific intent to harass (stalking) | Possession of torn journal page plus corroborating facts supported burglary; numerous threatening texts and conduct supported stalking intent | Evidence sufficient for both convictions (possession + corroboration for burglary; texts and conduct show specific intent to harass for stalking) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 439 P.3d 753 (Wyo. 2019) (standard for sufficiency review and inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- Pena v. State, 361 P.3d 862 (Wyo. 2015) (burglary elements and role of possession as strong corroboration)
- McGarvey v. State, 55 P.3d 703 (Wyo. 2002) (examples of corroborative evidence for burglary)
- Ferguson v. State, 168 P.3d 476 (Wyo. 2007) (slight corroboration can sustain burglary conviction)
- Dean v. State, 339 P.3d 509 (Wyo. 2014) (stalking is a specific intent crime; intent can be inferred)
- Leavitt v. State, 245 P.3d 831 (Wyo. 2011) (proof of specific intent by inference)
- Jones v. State, 278 P.3d 729 (Wyo. 2012) (reading intent from acts and circumstances)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard — performance and prejudice)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (right to warnings before custodial interrogation)