Carla Stalcup v. The State of Wyoming
2013 WY 114
Wyo.2013Background
- On May 18, 2011 a vehicle driven by Carla Stalcup (also referenced as Staleup/Young) left WY-210, rolled, and a passenger, Matthew Lorenz, was partially ejected and died; alcohol was smelled and an open bottle found.
- Stalcup was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide (felony) and two alternative misdemeanor DUI counts (driving with BAC ≥ .08% and driving while incapable of safely driving).
- Defense theory: Stalcup initially had no memory of the moments before the crash due to trauma; after EMDR therapy she later recalled Lorenz grabbing her arm/steering wheel, which would shift causation away from her impaired driving.
- Defense sought to admit expert testimony about EMDR and trauma-induced memory repression to explain delayed recall; the trial court excluded expert testimony about EMDR (allowed only general trauma effects testimony) and limited testimony about memory repression.
- Jury convicted Stalcup on aggravated vehicular homicide and both DUI counts; sentencing issues arose (written judgment initially conflicted with oral sentence) and the court merged DUI sentences for concurrency.
- On appeal the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the homicide conviction and remanded for a new trial because exclusion of EMDR expert testimony was erroneous; it also reversed the two DUI convictions and remanded to enter a single DUI conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of EMDR expert testimony / right to present a defense | Stalcup: exclusion violated her constitutional right to present a complete defense; expert would show trauma can repress memory and EMDR can facilitate later accurate recall | State: testimony unreliable under Daubert and would not prove accuracy of recalled memories; jury can assess credibility | Court: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion. Schaad was qualified, EMDR testimony met Daubert reliability and was relevant as foundation for therapist testimony; reversal and new trial ordered. |
| Jury question about seat belt use during deliberations | Stalcup: court's one-word answer (“No”) improperly restricted jury from "trying" whether neither wore seat belts and weighing expert testimony based on that fact | State: failure to wear seat belt was undisputed, reasonably foreseeable, and not a superseding cause; seat belt nonuse does not relieve defendant of liability | Court: No error. Court correctly answered because seat belt nonuse was not a defense to proximate causation and was undisputed at trial. |
| Multiple convictions/sentences for alternative DUI statutory means | Stalcup: two separate DUI convictions and sentences were illegal because statute lists alternative means of committing one offense | State: no error in convictions/sentencing | Court: Reversed dual convictions; where statute sets alternative means, only one conviction/sentence may stand; remand to enter one DUI conviction and sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (court set standards for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Hannon v. State, 84 P.3d 320 (Wyo. 2004) (criminal defendant's right to present a meaningful defense; framework for when expert testimony is central)
- Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d 467 (Wyo. 1999) (adoption of Daubert factors for evaluating expert reliability)
- Allen v. State, 43 P.3d 551 (Wyo. 2002) (victim's failure to wear seat belt does not supersede defendant's causal responsibility in vehicular homicide)
- Wenger v. State, 163 P.3d 824 (Wyo. 2007) (when statute sets alternative methods of committing a single offense, only one conviction and sentence may be entered)