Delbert R. McDowell v. The State of Wyoming, 318 P.3d 352

McDowell was convicted on six counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree and one count in the second degree in Wyoming.
The district court ruled that defense testimony could open the door for the State to present rebuttal 404(b) evidence under Rules 404(a)(1) and 405(a).
The State had given 404(b) notices and sought to introduce acts by McDowell surrounding other minors; the court limited which acts could be admitted.
McDowell called Dorie Steele, whose testimony raised questions about McDowell around children and opened the door for rebuttal by the State.
McDowell argued the court abused its discretion by allowing rebuttal evidence and that doing so violated due process.
The standard of review is abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings, with de novo review for constitutional due process challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion opening the door to 404(b) rebuttal?	McDowell argues the door was not opened by Steele and the State improperly used 404(a) rebuttal.	State contends Steele’s testimony created admissible character evidence opening 404(b) rebuttal.	No abuse; door opened properly and rebuttal evidence permissible.

Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wy. 2002) (Gleason analysis of 404/405 door and extrinsic acts applies here)
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (Sup. Ct. 1948) (limitations on character evidence and door-opening framework)
United States v. Gilliland, 586 F.2d 1384 (10th Cir. 1978) (incidental character evidence from witness cross-examination)
United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2004) (alibi testimony as incidental to character inference and scope of cross-exam)
Brown v. State, 736 P.2d 1110 (Wyo. 1987) (motive and 404(b) evidence in sexual-offense context)
Heywood v. State, 208 P.3d 71 (Wy. 2009) (recognizes tension between defense rights and evidentiary rules)