Downing v. State
2011 WY 113
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- CI worked with DCI to arrange illegal morphine purchase; buy money of $1,800 given to appellant at JC's house with JC and SM present
- CI was wired; recording quality was poor due to background noise
- Investigation did not immediately recover buy money or pills due to lack of immediate warrant execution
- Pretrial discovery sought information on other CI buys; district court ordered Brady/Hensley material production but limited Rule 16/26.2 discovery
- Trial court sustained defense objection to questioning CI about other buys, citing risk of jury distraction
- Appellant’s theory: CI sought to con DCI; cross-examination sought to test CI credibility and potential bias
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion interpreting evidence rules | Downing argues exclusion of other buys violated Brady/Hensley and cross-exam rights | Downing asserts cross-exam to test CI credibility is essential to defense | Conviction reversed; new trial remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. State, 2007 WY 146, 167 P.3d 636 (Wyo.2007) (reversal when evidence central to defense was excluded under 403/404 analogies)
- Hensley v. State, 2002 WY 96, 48 P.3d 1099 (Wyo.2002) (impeachment/Brady materiality; material evidence requires reversal)
- Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyo.2003) (reversed where cross-examination of credibility denied; significant reliance on witness credibility)
- Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, 127 P.3d 793 (Wyo.2006) (limits on cross-examination; confrontation rights may be reasonably restricted)
- Hannon v. State, 2004 WY 8, 84 P.3d 320 (Wyo.2004) (confrontation right; testing witness reliability through cross-examination)
- Budig v. State, 2010 WY 1, 222 P.3d 148 (Wyo.2010) (limits on cross-examination; harmless-error framework clarified)
- Bagley v. Maryland, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375 (U.S.1985) (materiality standard for Brady evidence)
- United States v. DeSoto, 950 F.2d 626 (10th Cir.1991) (limits on cross-examination; balancing of relevance and prejudicial impact)
