Brandon Joe Overson v. State, 2017 WY 4

Brandon Overson was arrested after police, investigating a reported drug deal behind a hotel, stopped a gold Tahoe registered to him and found five individually packaged bags of methamphetamine on his person plus two cell phones and cash.
At trial he was charged with possession of methamphetamine and possession with intent to deliver; he admitted possession but contested intent to deliver.
Early trial testimony described the hotel drug transaction and drugs found in Tandie Hooks’ car and on her person; the prosecution initially linked that transaction to Overson through Hooks’ statements to officers.
The district court conditionally admitted evidence about the hotel transaction under W.R.E. 104(b) but later ruled the State had not proven the hotel-scene drugs were methamphetamine, limiting the permissible use of that evidence.
The jury convicted Overson on both counts; the court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms. On appeal, Overson argued the hotel-transaction evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.
The Wyoming Supreme Court held that much of the hotel-transaction evidence was irrelevant to the only contested issue (intent to deliver) and its admission was prejudicial; it reversed the possession-with-intent conviction and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence about prior drug transaction	State: testimony explained how officers contacted Overson and was relevant under W.R.E. 104(b)	Overson: hotel-transaction evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to intent issue	Court: much of the testimony about the hotel transaction exceeded what was necessary to explain police action and was irrelevant; admission was error and prejudicial, so conviction for intent-to-deliver reversed
Double jeopardy / merger of convictions	Overson: felony possession is a lesser included offense and convictions/sentences should merge	State: (not addressed on merits because first issue dispositive)	Court: did not reach merger issue because reversal on evidentiary ground made it unnecessary

Griggs v. State, 367 P.3d 1108 (Wyo. 2016) (limits on using out-of-court statements to show effect on hearer; only necessary details may be admitted)
United States v. Cass, 127 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 1997) (discusses limits on admitting third-party statements to explain police conduct)
Kerns v. State, 920 P.2d 632 (Wyo. 1996) (officer testimony repeating reports may be admissible to explain investigation but with limits)
Longstreth v. State, 832 P.2d 560 (Wyo. 1992) (similar discussion on scope of admissible investigative testimony)
Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyo. 2003) (harmless-error standard in criminal appeals)
Lancaster v. State, 43 P.3d 80 (Wyo. 2002) (harmful-error test articulated)
Johnson v. State, 790 P.2d 231 (Wyo. 1990) (statement on prejudice standard for reversible error)
Brock v. State, 272 P.3d 933 (Wyo. 2012) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion)