Grady Leroy Hodge v. State
355 P.3d 368
Wyo.2015Background
- Defendant Grady Leroy Hodge was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of his minor daughter for assaults alleged in 2012.
- State gave pretrial notice under W.R.E. 404(b) of uncharged misconduct evidence, including alleged prior abuse of both the victim R.H. (same victim as charged) and an older daughter C.T.; the district court admitted much of that evidence after a hearing.
- Defense theory challenged the timing of one charged incident, relying on a photograph of a finished table; after conviction, additional dated photographs were found on the family computer and moved into a new-trial motion under W.R.Cr.P. 33(c).
- The district court denied the new-trial motion, finding the newly discovered photos would not likely change the verdict and that defense counsel’s investigation was not deficient.
- Appeal was delayed because the court reporter filed transcripts 179 days after the applicable deadline; defendant argued this delay violated due process.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed: (1) admission of uncharged misconduct was not an abuse of discretion, (2) trial counsel was not ineffective, and (3) the transcript delay did not rise to a due-process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Hodge's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged misconduct under W.R.E. 404(b) | District court abused discretion; prior acts were unfairly prejudicial | Evidence was offered for proper purposes (motive, intent, course), probative value outweighed prejudice | No abuse of discretion; court applied Vigil/Gleason balancing and made findings supporting admission |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to locate dated photos pretrial | Counsel was deficient for not obtaining metadata/photos; prejudice because photos would have impeached timing of one count | Counsel wasn’t aware photos existed; defendant failed to inform counsel or investigator; introduced a photo at trial already | No ineffective assistance: investigation was reasonable given record and no showing of prejudice |
| New-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence (W.R.Cr.P. 33(c)) | Newly found photos warranted a new trial | Photos would not likely change outcome; similar evidence was already presented | Denied: defendant failed to satisfy the new-trial factors |
| Due process from transcript delay on appeal | 179-day late filing inordinately delayed appeal and deprived process | Delay not long enough to be presumptively inordinate under Barker/Daniel; defendant’s appeal timeline examined | No due-process violation: delay not significant enough to trigger further Barker analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardenas v. State, 330 P.3d 808 (Wyo. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- Howard v. State, 42 P.3d 483 (Wyo. 2002) (pretrial 404(b) notice treated as timely objection)
- Mersereau v. State, 286 P.3d 97 (Wyo. 2012) (prejudice standard for evidentiary error)
- Vigil v. State, 926 P.2d 351 (Wyo. 1996) (Vigil test for admissibility of prior-bad-acts evidence)
- Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wyo. 2002) (factors for balancing probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
- Frias v. State, 722 P.2d 135 (Wyo. 1986) (Strickland framework applied to counsel investigation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Daniel v. State, 78 P.3d 205 (Wyo. 2003) (modified Barker test for appellate transcript delay and due process)