John Allen Moore v. The State of Wyoming
2013 WY 120
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- On June 29–30, 2011, Nicole Crowson discovered a stolen 1977 Chevrolet Silverado pickup and a 2002 PJ trailer from her father’s property; John Allen Moore was later identified at the property and admitted stealing and selling the Silverado but denied taking the trailer.
- Deputies located the trailer on property where Moore had permission to park and identified the tractor on the trailer as one Moore had purchased; Moore was charged with felony larceny and tried before a 12-person jury in February 2012.
- During voir dire prospective juror CW (a former police officer and current municipal court bailiff) expressed doubt about his ability to be impartial; the judge declined to excuse him for cause, defense did not challenge, and CW was seated as the sole alternate juror and later excused before deliberations.
- After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the bailiff reported concerns that juror BT made “off‑the‑wall” comments and possibly could not follow deliberations; the judge had briefly interacted with jurors post‑verdict and saw no problem.
- Moore moved for a new trial alleging BT’s mental incompetence and also claimed ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to challenge CW for cause; the district court took no timely action and the motion was deemed denied under W.R.Cr.P. 33(b).
- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed: (1) no prejudice from counsel’s failure to challenge CW because CW was an alternate excused before deliberations; (2) the motion for new trial was properly deemed denied because Moore failed to present clear, substantial evidence of juror incompetence; (3) no cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for not challenging juror CW for cause | Moore: counsel should have challenged CW who said he couldn’t be fair | State: CW was only an alternate, later excused, so no prejudice | Court: No prejudice — CW did not sit on deliberating jury; presumption jurors followed admonitions |
| 2. Motion for new trial based on juror BT’s incompetence | Moore: post‑verdict reports and bailiff statements show BT couldn’t understand/deliberate; denied right to a competent 12‑person jury | State: the post‑verdict statements were insufficient to show clear, substantial evidence of incompetence | Court: Motion could be deemed denied; record did not meet narrow exception requiring strong proof of incompetence, so no abuse of discretion |
| 3. Cumulative error | Moore: combined errors deprived him of fair trial | State: no individual errors shown, so no cumulative prejudice | Court: Doctrine inapplicable—no individually harmless errors found |
Key Cases Cited
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (post‑verdict juror incompetence inquiries generally barred; narrow exceptions)
- United States v. Dioguardi, 492 F.2d 70 (exception requires clear, substantial evidence of juror incompetence)
- United States v. Hall, 536 F.2d 313 (same principle regarding juror mental incapacity)
- Klahn v. State, 96 P.3d 472 (prejudice standard when counsel fails to secure a challenge for cause)
- King v. State, 780 P.2d 943 (review of motion for new trial denial; court may affirm even if trial court gave no reason)