Carter v. State
282 P.3d 167
Wyo.2012Background
- Carter was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver two grams of methamphetamine, a felony under Wyoming law.
- On appeal, Carter challenges expert testimony that he was guilty of being a drug dealer as plain error.
- He also challenges closing argument for prosecutorial misconduct in arguing facts not in evidence.
- Police investigated after tips and observed 'short stay traffic' at Carter's residence, leading to a search warrant execution.
- A special agent qualified as an expert testified that the totality of the circumstances indicated dealer status; defense did not object.
- Notebooks and other items found during the search included pay/owe sheets, scales, and surveillance equipment; pages were excised from a notebook before trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error occurred when expert testimony stated Carter was a dealer | Carter argues the expert expressed guilt. | State contends admissible expert opinion under Rule 704. | Plain error; expert testimony invaded jury's province. |
| Prosecutor argued facts not in evidence in closing | Carter asserts closing referenced removed notebook pages and contemporaneous notes. | State argues comments were within closing argument scope. | Plain error; closing remarks deprived fair trial; new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogden v. State, 34 P.3d 271 (Wy. 2001) (witness may not express guilt; ultimate issue for jury)
- Whiteplume v. State, 841 P.2d 1332 (Wy. 1992) (limits on opinion testimony about guilt)
- Bennett v. State, 794 P.2d 879 (Wy. 1990) (expert opinion cannot directly conclude guilt)
- Cureton v. State, 169 P.3d 549 (Wy. 2007) (officer's testimony on meaning of evidence; not guilt)
- Benneft v. State, 794 P.2d 879 (Wy. 1990) (testimony linking facts to guilt; reversal concern)
- Cooper v. State, 174 P.3d 726 (Wy. 2008) (plain error analysis for closing argument)
- Montoya v. State, 971 P.2d 134 (Wy. 1998) (prosecutorial conduct judged by impact on trial)
- Condra v. State, 100 P.3d 386 (Wy. 2004) (reversals for due process defects in trial)
- James v. State, 888 P.2d 200 (Wy. 1994) (closing argument caution and plain error standards)