Byron Nelson Griggs v. State
2016 WY 16
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- In 2012 DFS removed three siblings (CM, SM, JM) from their home; foster mother TP learned CM made a sexualized comment and the children later reported abuse by ‘‘Byron’’ (identified as Byron Griggs).
- CM (age 5 at the time), SM (age 4), and JM (age 7) gave forensic interviews; CM and JM testified at trial (SM gave no substantive testimony). Griggs was charged with four counts of first‑degree sexual abuse and faced life without parole due to a prior conviction.
- Pretrial competency hearings were held; the district court found all three children competent under the Larsen five‑factor test. Griggs challenged competency, claiming taint from suggestive interviews.
- Trial evidence included testimony from the children, foster mother, forensic interviewer, a nurse practitioner, and a DCI agent about Griggs’ prior conviction; the jury convicted on all counts and the court imposed life without parole.
- On appeal Griggs raised multiple claims: incompetence of child witnesses, ineffective assistance for not calling an expert, speedy‑trial violation, denial of a continuance, erroneous admission of hearsay, and improper 404(b) evidence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, finding limited hearsay errors harmless and rejecting other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Griggs’ Argument | State/Defense (counter) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child competency to testify | Children (particularly CM and SM) lacked moral understanding, memory, and were tainted by suggestive interviews | Court observed children, found Larsen factors satisfied; no ‘‘some evidence’’ of taint shown pretrial | Affirmed: district court’s competency findings not clearly erroneous |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (no expert called at competency/trial) | Counsel was deficient for not calling Dr. Vickie Gregory to testify at competency/taint hearings or at trial; lack of funding/expert prejudiced defense | Counsel retained Gregory as consultant; used her to craft cross‑examination; expert testimony would have been cumulative and not outcome‑determinative | Affirmed: counsel’s performance not deficient; no prejudice shown |
| Speedy trial | 411‑day delay between charging and trial violated Sixth Amendment | Much delay attributable to Griggs (changes of counsel, continuances, waivers); remaining delay neutral; Griggs did not vigorously assert right and showed no extraordinary prejudice | Affirmed: Barker factors balanced for State; no speedy‑trial violation |
| Denial of last continuance | Needed more time for expert to review materials and advise; denial prejudiced defense | Expert had already assisted; counsel prepared and used expert consultation; many continuances had been granted earlier | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion or manifest injustice |
| Admission of hearsay (foster mother, mother, forensic interviewer, nurse) | Multiple witnesses repeated children’s out‑of‑court statements — inadmissible hearsay/double hearsay | Some statements admissible as: (a) effect on hearer/background; (b) prior consistent statements under WY Rule 801(d)(1)(B); (c) medical‑diagnosis exception W.R.E.803(4) | Mixed: Court found TP’s (foster mother) detailed repetition and nurse’s detailed repetition of TP improper (plain/hearsay error) but errors were harmless/cumulative; forensic interviewer and mother’s limited statements admissible |
| Admission/use of prior bad acts under W.R.E.404(b) | Prior 2003 conviction unfairly prejudicial and was emphasized in rebuttal | Court conducted Gleason analysis, admitted prior conviction to show motive, instructed jury, allowed limited rebuttal comment after defense opened the door | Affirmed: admission and limited rebuttal not an abuse of discretion; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- English v. State, 982 P.2d 139 (Wyo. 1999) (requires ‘‘some evidence’’ of suggestive/coercive interviewing before a taint hearing is mandated)
- Larsen v. State, 686 P.2d 583 (Wyo. 1984) (adopted five‑factor test for child‑witness competency)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four‑factor speedy trial balancing test)
- Seward v. State, 76 P.3d 805 (Wyo. 2003) (cautions against repetitive prior consistent statements used to bolster credibility)
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1995) (federal limits on prior consistent statements; timing requirement)
- Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wyo. 2002) (framework for admissibility and balancing of W.R.E. 404(b) evidence)