Brandon Frederick Wiese v. State, 375 P.3d 805

Officers encountered Brandon Wiese on the fifth floor of a Holiday Inn after hotel staff reported harassment and suspected a man in Room 527.
Wiese smelled of alcohol, had black residue on his hands and a nearly empty whiskey bottle; officers found multiple hotel keycards on him.
Hotel staff/search of Room 527 uncovered a duffel containing prescription pill bottles belonging to the guest from Room 526, spilled gunpowder matching residue on Wiese’s hands, cologne, and later additional keycards and a housekeeping smock.
The guest from Room 526 identified the duffel as his and reported it missing; Wiese was arrested and charged with burglary of Room 526 (the Room 527 burglary count was dismissed at preliminary hearing).
Wiese invoked voluntary intoxication as a defense, arguing he lacked the specific intent to steal and sought conviction only for the lesser offense of criminal entry.
At trial the State introduced testimony about keycards and the smock (no 404(b) notice was given); defense did not object to the testimony but later challenged admissibility on appeal; prosecutor’s closing included an unobjected-to remark that jurors should “hold him accountable, or he will laugh his way out of this courtroom.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of keycards and housekeeping smock as uncharged misconduct (Rule 404(b))	State: evidence was probative of presence at Room 527 and intent; not prejudicial	Wiese: items were uncharged bad-act evidence admitted without 404(b) notice and prejudiced verdict	Court assumed 404(b) scrutiny but found no prejudice; admission (treated as error if any) not reversible because no reasonable possibility verdict would be more favorable without it
Prosecutorial misconduct for closing remark that jurors must “hold him accountable, or he will laugh his way out of this courtroom.”	State: closing argument within bounds; comment minor in context	Wiese: remark improperly appealed to juror emotion and suggested only guilt would avoid mocking/punishment; plain error review required (no objection below)	Court found the comment crossed the line (violated clear rule) but, under plain error standard, was not material prejudice given strength of evidence; conviction affirmed

Griggs v. State, 367 P.3d 1108 (Wyo. 2016) (timeliness of Rule 404(b) notice objection and standard of review)
Bromley v. State, 150 P.3d 1202 (Wyo. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for admission of uncharged misconduct)
Payseno v. State, 332 P.3d 1176 (Wyo. 2014) (standard for prejudicial admission of evidence — reasonable possibility verdict would be more favorable)
Jennings v. State, 806 P.2d 1299 (Wyo. 1991) (elements of burglary: unauthorized entry plus intent to steal)
Ortiz v. State, 326 P.3d 883 (Wyo. 2014) (plain error test for unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct)
Janpol v. State, 178 P.3d 396 (Wyo. 2008) (improper prosecutorial argument implying defendant would avoid punishment if acquitted)