399 P.3d 625
Wyo.2017Background
- Victim (NC) was 6–8 years old; Hathaway lived with NC and her mother; after moving out NC reported sexual abuse to grandparents and a nurse examiner.
- Detective Johnson encountered Hathaway at work (custodial encounter), later arrested and Mirandized him at the station; Hathaway made statements during a multi‑hour interview admitting some contact while claiming NC initiated it.
- Hathaway was charged with multiple counts (first‑degree sexual intrusion including fellatio; second‑degree sexual contact); jury convicted on fellatio (Count II) and sexual contact (Count III), acquitted on two other intrusion counts.
- Pretrial, Hathaway moved to suppress post‑arrest statements, arguing he had invoked his right to counsel during the initial custodial encounter; the court denied suppression.
- Defense subpoenaed Department of Family Services (DFS) records for in camera review to seek alternate sources of NC’s sexual knowledge; the court quashed the subpoena as insufficiently specific.
- Hathaway received concurrent sentences: Count II 32–35 years, Count III 18–20 years (consecutive); on appeal, court affirmed most rulings but found Count II sentence illegal under Wyoming law and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Hathaway's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion to suppress: whether Hathaway unequivocally requested counsel during custodial encounter | Hathaway contended he repeatedly asked for a lawyer and questioning after those statements violated Miranda/Edwards | State argued the statements were ambiguous/equivocal and detective properly clarified; subsequent station warnings and waiver were valid | Court held Hathaway did not make an unambiguous invocation of right to counsel; denial of suppression affirmed |
| 2. Admission of detective’s recorded interview (vouching) — plain error review | Hathaway argued detective’s statements that he believed victim and that evidence showed guilt were improper vouching and prejudicial | State conceded violation of vouching rule but argued error was not prejudicial given strong other evidence, detective’s explanation of interrogation techniques, prosecutor’s restraint, and jury instructions | Court found plain error in admitting vouching statements but no prejudice; conviction stands |
| 3. Quash of DFS subpoena duces tecum for in camera review | Hathaway argued DFS records could show alternate source of victim’s sexual knowledge and were constitutionally material; sought in camera review under §14‑3‑214(b)(vi) | State/DFS argued records confidential and subpoena was overbroad and insufficiently specific under Rule 17(d) and Nixon/Bowman/Iozia standards | Court held subpoena was a fishing expedition lacking requisite specificity/materiality; quash affirmed |
| 4. Legality of sentence on Count II under Wyo. Stat. § 7‑13‑201 | Hathaway argued 32‑35 years illegal because minimum exceeds 90% of maximum | State agreed sentence violated §7‑13‑201 | Court held sentence illegal; reversed and remanded for resentencing on Count II |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and right to counsel rule)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (interrogation must cease after invocation of right to counsel)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (objective test for unambiguous invocation of counsel)
- Ritchie v. Pennsylvania, 480 U.S. 39 (Brady/Bagley materiality framework for disclosure of privileged information)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (definition of "material" Brady evidence)
- Sweet v. State, 234 P.3d 1193 (Wyo. 2010) (vouching evidence doctrine and prejudice analysis)
- Mersereau v. State, 286 P.3d 97 (Wyo. 2012) (officer vouching inadmissible in court)
- Gale v. State, 792 P.2d 570 (Wyo. 1990) (standards for in camera review and materiality of privileged records)