Landeroz v. State
2011 WY 168
Wyo.2011Background
- Guila Landeroz was convicted of aggravated assault and battery; jury acquitted her of attempted first degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and conspiracy to murder; verdict unresolved on attempted manslaughter.
- The State moved to dismiss the attempted first degree murder charge without prejudice after sentencing; the district court granted the dismissal.
- Trial revealed Furman offered testimony in exchange for favorable treatment; defense sought mistrial for nondisclosure.
- The jury was instructed on lesser included offenses; it acquitted on the greater charges and deadlocked on manslaughter.
- Post-trial, the district court dismissed the attempted first degree murder charge without prejudice, and judgment followed the jury verdict; Landeroz appealed.
- The appellate court remanded to clarify the dismissal terms as to which charges are with prejudice or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal without prejudice after acquittal violated double jeopardy | Landeroz argues re-prosecution for the same offense is barred | State contends dismissal prevents an unfair deadlock outcome and allows retrial on lesser offense | Dismissal without prejudice as to attempted first degree murder violates double jeopardy; must be with prejudice; manslaughter may be pursued without prejudice after deadlock |
| Whether undisclosed witness deal with Furman violated due process | Landeroz asserts Brady materials were not disclosed prior to trial | State claims defense had opportunity to cross-examine and use the letter | No due process violation found for trial strategy; however, disclosure failures prompted referral to Bar Counsel for investigation |
| Whether the delayed Brady disclosure violated Brady standards | Landeroz relied on undisclosed letter showing a proffer arrangement | State provided letter during trial; defense could use it for impeachment | Brady material was eventually disclosed; no reversal required under trial-disclosure framework |
| Whether the district court’s ordering caused confusion about prejudice | Landeroz argues potential re-prosecution on different charges | State seeks to recharge only manslaughter; other charges barred | Order should be clarified to reflect prejudice as to attempted first degree murder and without prejudice as to attempted manslaughter |
| Whether prosecutorial conduct merits bar or discipline | Prosecutors engaged in nondisclosure and misstatement of facts | Conduct did not alter outcome; control is through Bar Counsel review | Court referred the matter to Bar Counsel for investigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (deadlocked juries can lead to retrial without violating double jeopardy)
- Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984) (jeopardy ends with acquittal or conviction; deadlock permits retrial for lesser offense)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence to defense)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality of undisclosed evidence assessed by probability of different outcome)
- Agurs v. United States, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence irrespective of good faith)