Douglas Howard Craft v. The State of Wyoming
2013 WY 41
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Craft was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse of a minor involving his three daughters and appeals on claims of prosecutorial misconduct, a fatal variance, and expert testimony issues.
- The State questioned witnesses about a photograph (State Exhibit 4) not admitted into evidence and referenced it in closing, after ALC could not identify Craft in court.
- ALC testified she could not identify Craft; the State later testified the photo depicted Craft, taken in August 2010, without the photo being admitted as a trial exhibit.
- The defense relied on Dr. Campbell, a forensic psychologist, who testified about types of allegations; the prosecutor objected to an ultimate opinion, and the court sustained the objection.
- The jury found Craft guilty on two first-degree counts (for AXC and ALC) and one second-degree count (PC); sentences were consecutive.
- Craft argues the district court erred in allowing identification by photograph and in excluding the expert’s type-of-allegation testimony; the court ultimately affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct from unadmitted exhibit use | Craft contends the prosecutor used an unadmitted photograph to identify him and commented on it in closing. | State argues the conduct was within the district court’s rulings and not misconduct. | No prosecutorial misconduct; issue centers on sanction for non-listed exhibit, but no prejudice shown. |
| Fatal variance between information and trial proof | Craft asserts AXC and PC time-frame allegations varied from charging information. | State maintains no fatal variance; instructions and charges tracked the same elements and dates. | No fatal variance; sufficient evidence supports convictions within charged period. |
| Trial court abuse in excluding expert testimony on allegation type | Craft claims Dr. Campbell should be allowed to classify allegations as confirmed/fabricated/false. | State argues such testimony would invade the jury’s province and is improper. | District court did not abuse discretion by excluding the testimony; it would have impermissibly comment on credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butcher v. State, 123 P.3d 543 (Wy. 2005) (prosecutorial misconduct standards; plain vs harmless error)
- Cureton v. State, 169 P.3d 549 (Wyo. 2007) (limits on expert testimony and ultimate issue)
- Whiteplume v. State, 841 P.2d 1332 (Wyo. 1992) (improper opinion on credibility and guilt)
- Dawes v. State, 236 P.3d 303 (Wyo. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and variance in criminal cases)
- Spagner v. State, 200 P.3d 793 (Wyo. 2009) (variance and sufficiency considerations for time-frame evidence)
- Weidt v. State, 46 P.3d 846 (Wyo. 2002) (variance analysis and notice requirements)