Derek Earl Hill v. State
2016 WY 27
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Derek Hill was convicted by a jury of five counts of reckless endangering, three counts of aggravated assault (one per officer), and one count of eluding after a high‑speed chase and an on‑scene shooting incident.
- The Tuckers reported Hill following them after they had been shooting; they observed a rifle on Hill’s dash aimed toward them and called 911.
- Police located Hill, initiated a traffic stop, and pursued him; Hill fled at high speed on rough road, his car later disabled, and he exited holding an AK‑74 rifle.
- Officers ordered Hill to show his hands and get on the ground; he ran, a shot fired ~10 seconds later, officers took cover and turned off lights; about two minutes later three more shots were fired.
- Conflicting testimony: Hill said he tripped and accidentally discharged a shot and later shot at a skunk; Deputy Schwindt testified he saw a muzzle flash and Hill turn slightly toward officers. No casings/bullets recovered; Hill arrested next day.
- Hill appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of an aggravated assault threat, erroneous admission of officers’ subjective fear testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did State prove Hill "threatened to use" a drawn deadly weapon? | Hill: No actual threat — he ran away, made no verbal threats, rifle not proven pointed at officers. | State: Conduct (fleeing with rifle, defying orders, turning and firing) supports inference of a threat. | Affirmed — jury could rationally find an actual threat from Hill’s actions and the shooting. |
| Admissibility: Were officers’ reactions to the shot (subjective fear) admissible? | Hill: Testimony about officers’ fear was irrelevant victim‑impact evidence and highly prejudicial. | State: Officers’ immediate reactions (taking cover, turning lights off) explain events and bear on whether a threat existed. | Mixed — objective actions admissible; subjective fear statements were an abuse of discretion to admit but harmless error given overwhelming evidence. |
| Mistrial: Did prosecutor’s community‑outrage and vouching comments require mistrial? | Hill: Closing invoked community danger and improperly vouched for witnesses (Dr. Hamby, Mrs. Tucker), warranting mistrial. | State: Comments were fair argument or harmless; some wording strong but supported by evidence. | Denied — some comments ("deadly serious to the community") were improper but not materially prejudicial; denial of mistrial not an abuse. |
| Plain error: Did prosecutor misstate law or improperly vouch in closing (unobjected claims)? | Hill: Prosecutor said firing the gun "satisfies" threat element and attacked Hill’s credibility improperly. | State: Prosecutor argued inferences from the evidence; not a legal misstatement and permissible credibility argument when evidence supports it. | No plain error — arguments viewed in context were permissible or non‑prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Levengood v. State, 336 P.3d 1201 (Wyo. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and victim‑reaction limits)
- Johnston v. State, 747 P.2d 1132 (Wyo. 1987) (definition of "threatens to use" and jury instruction on threats)
- Gunderson v. State, 925 P.2d 1300 (Wyo. 1996) (victim reaction as evidence of threat)
- Hart v. State, 62 P.3d 566 (Wyo. 2003) (displaying a gun can constitute an implied threat)
- Ewing v. State, 157 P.3d 943 (Wyo. 2007) (threat can be inferred from statements combined with presence of weapon)
- Jensen v. State, 116 P.3d 1088 (Wyo. 2005) (victim’s immediate emotional response relevant to rebut fabrication defense)
- Hernandez v. State, 976 P.2d 672 (Wyo. 1999) (relevance and W.R.E. 401/403 balancing)
- Yellowbear v. State, 174 P.3d 1270 (Wyo. 2008) (standards for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct in closing)
- Collins v. State, 354 P.3d 55 (Wyo. 2015) (plain‑error review for unobjected prosecutorial comments)