Davis v. State, 406 P.3d 1233

Background

On June 1, 2016 Gregory Davis and his estranged wife, Jill Davis, had a physical altercation during which Jill reported Davis threw her to the floor, tried to remove her clothes, wrestled her twice, lay on top of her, grabbed her neck, ripped an earring out, and she repeatedly told him she could not breathe. EMTs and hospital personnel observed bruising and extensive petechiae around her neck and ears.
Jill made a 911 call while driving away and gave multiple contemporaneous statements to law enforcement and medical personnel that she had been choked/strangled and could not breathe; medical providers diagnosed probable strangulation/asphyxiation and noted possible loss of consciousness and urine incontinence.
Jill later expressed reluctance to cooperate: she met with the prosecutor, minimized aspects of the incident, submitted an affidavit of non-cooperation, and told the State to drop charges; she also gave a recorded interview on June 4 in which she referenced disagreeing with the prosecutor’s use of the term “strangulation.”
The State sought to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence of post-arraignment attempts to influence the victim and sought permission to present expert testimony about domestic-violence victim behavior; the court admitted the expert testimony and allowed post-arraignment 404(b) evidence but excluded prior-assault evidence.
After a five-day jury trial the jury convicted Davis of recklessly causing bodily injury by impeding breathing or circulation through pressure on the throat/neck (strangulation statute). The court sentenced him to 2–4 years. Davis appealed, asserting prosecutorial misconduct for alleged nondisclosure of exculpatory statements and insufficiency of the evidence. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did prosecutor suppress exculpatory evidence (Brady)?	State failed to disclose that on June 2 Jill told prosecutor there was no strangulation, denying Davis a fair trial.	State disclosed the June 4 recorded interview (which referenced the June 2 conversation) months before trial and defense cross‑examined the witness about it.	No Brady violation; disclosure was made before it was too late and the defense used the material at trial.
2. Did prosecutor mischaracterize witness/commit misconduct by acting as witness?	Prosecutor misled court and withheld evidence, then improperly portrayed Jill as a recanting witness.	Prosecutor’s characterization was supported by multiple pretrial inconsistent statements and medical evidence; she did not withhold the substance.	No misconduct; record justified describing the victim as having changed her story.
3. Was evidence sufficient that breathing/circulation was impeded by pressure on neck?	Davis argues Jill never testified at trial that breathing was impeded and there was no proof of pressure on the neck.	State relied on Jill’s prior statements, EMT/hospital observations (petechiae, bruising), and medical opinion diagnosing asphyxiation from neck compression.	Sufficient evidence; medical findings and prior statements support jury’s conclusion that neck pressure impeded breathing/circulation.
4. Was there sufficient evidence of "bodily injury" from the strangulation?	Petechiae alone are not bodily injury; no other injury established.	Statutory definition includes physical pain or impairment; testimony of headache, petechiae, probable loss of consciousness/oxygen deprivation satisfy bodily injury.	Sufficient evidence; petechiae, headaches, and probable hypoxia loss of consciousness qualify as bodily injury.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (favorable evidence is material only if reasonable probability of different outcome)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (Brady principles and timing of disclosure explained)
Lawson v. State, 242 P.3d 993 (Wyo. 2010) (discusses Brady review and due process duties of State)
Hicks v. State, 187 P.3d 877 (Wyo. 2008) (standard for district court review and Brady context)
Counts v. State, 277 P.3d 94 (Wyo. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)