Garner v. State
2011 WY 156
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Garner challenged two methamphetamine delivery convictions under Wyoming Stat. § 35-7-1031(a)(i).
- Evidence centered on two controlled-buy operations in which a confidential informant HB purchased meth from Garner with DCI supervision and funds.
- HB agreed to deferred prosecution under § 7-13-301 in relation to marijuana charges in exchange for informant work.
- Prior to trial, defense sought to cross-examine HB about her plea deal; the court allowed inquiry into the deal’s existence and bias but limited discussion of other details.
- During cross-examination, a question about HB using her 16-year-old son to sell marijuana prompted an objection and a bench discussion.
- The court ultimately issued a curative instruction limiting consideration of the 16-year-old-son testimony; Garner was convicted on both delivery counts and sentenced to consecutive 8 to 18 year terms, with the conspiracy charge dismissed on JMOL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in limiting cross-examination and giving a curative instruction | Garner argues the court curtailed testing HB’s credibility | Garner contends bias evidence was improperly excluded | No abuse of discretion; bias-relevant cross-examination allowed with proper limits |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the delivery convictions | HB’s credibility underpinned the proof | If HB credible, evidence supports convictions | Sufficient evidence; rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. State, 224 P.3d 1 (Wyoming, 2010) (standard for harmful error in evidentiary rulings)
- Proffit v. State, 191 P.3d 974 (Wyoming, 2008) (harms standard; review of evidentiary error)
- Lawrence v. State, 171 P.3d 517 (Wyoming, 2007) (bias evidence under cross-examination; 608/403/611 integration)
- United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (bias evidence admissibility; cross-examination rules)
- Hannon v. State, 84 P.3d 320 (Wyoming, 2004) (Confrontation Clause limits on cross-examination)
- Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003) (Confrontation Clause and cross-examination discretion)
- Miller v. State, 127 P.3d 793 (Wyoming, 2006) (cross-examination and evidentiary limits authority)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1988) (limits on cross-examination under confrontation)
- Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (right to effective cross-examination; limits allowed)
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Donahue, 674 P.2d 1276 (Wyoming, 1983) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Lawrence v. State, 171 P.3d 517 (Wyoming, 2007) (bias evidence admissibility under cross-examination)