Gregory M. Toth v. State, 2015 WY 86

Background

Toth took Aguilar’s running shell-truck with attached trailer from a Gillette gas station intending to drive south until he ran out of gas and abandon it.
The vehicle was reported stolen; law enforcement pursued and ultimately apprehended Toth after a pursuit.
State sought to prove deprivation: disposal of the vehicle so owner would likely not recover it.
Toth admitted he was under methamphetamine influence and argued this self-induced intoxication negated specific intent.
Officer Dillard testified about Toth’s intoxication and “nonstatements”; defense sought to use 609 evidence of a prior felony conviction which the court limited.
The district court later allowed limited 609 questions and addressed a jury-question about the scope of consideration of the entire event, culminating in a guilty verdict for felony theft.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of deprive	Toth argues no sufficient proof of intent to deprive; abandonment upon running out of gas is not depriving.	Toth contends there was no intent to deprive owner permanently; only temporary taking.	Evidence supported intent to deprive; circumstantial evidence allowed reasonable inference of deprive.
Discovery violation sanctions under Rule 16	State violated Rule 16(a)(1)(B) by failing to disclose prior record; sanction warranted.	No sanction should be imposed; defense knew of prior conviction; prejudice minimal.	No sanctions imposed; district court acted within reasonable discretion.
Admission of 609 evidence	Admission of prior burglary conviction was admissible to impeach credibility.	District court failed to balance probative value vs. prejudicial effect; should not have admitted.	District court abused discretion in admitting under Rule 609, but error was harmless given Toth’s own admission of intent.
Restriction on cross-examining about nonstatements	Exclusion of nonstatements deprived defense of complete mental-state defense.	Nonstatements were relevant to intoxication; ruling wrongly limited defense.	Exclusion was error, but not prejudicial given remaining evidence and defense testimony.
Invited error and response to jury question	Failure to give specific intent instruction in response to jury’s question prejudiced defense.	Toth waived the right by approving appellate posture; invited error doctrine applies.	Waived; invited error doctrine applied; no appellate reversal.

Key Cases Cited

Andersen v. State, 2014 WY 88 (Wy. 2014) (standard of review for sufficiency and evidentiary issues)
Wells v. State, 613 P.2d 201 (Wy. 1980) (intent to deprive can be inferred from circumstances and abandonment evidence)
Pena v. State, 294 P.3d 13 (Wy. 2013) (circumstantial evidence supports inferential deprive intent)
Ceja v. State, 208 P.3d 66 (Wy. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery and evidentiary rulings)
Naple v. State, 143 P.3d 358 (Wy. 2006) (discretionary sanctions for discovery violations; standard of review)
Mersereau v. State, 286 P.3d 97 (Wy. 2012) (harmless error analysis for evidentiary rulings)