Larry Edward Magnus v. The State of Wyoming
2013 WY 13
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Larry Magnus was convicted of conspiracy to obtain property by false pretenses and sentenced to eight to ten years.
- The State sought to introduce uncharged misconduct evidence under Rule 404(b) and provided pretrial notice identifying three prior incidents.
- Prior incidents: 2001 Casper junior police academy solicitations, 2001 Evans, Colorado solicitation, and 2008 Loveland, Colorado charitable fraud; the Casper and Loveland incidents were presented at trial.
- Gleason hearing reviewed the 404(b) evidence; district court allowed the evidence with cautionary jury instructions.
- At sentencing, the State filed a Memorandum in Respect of Sentencing advocating eight to ten years plus restitution; Magnus objected to the tone of the PSI and the attachment of the memo.
- The court ultimately sentenced Magnus to eight to ten years, excising the memorandum from the PSI; Magnus appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion admitting 404(b) evidence | Magnus | Magnus | No abuse of discretion |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred in sentencing by using undocumented allegations | Magnus | Magnus | No plain error; information considered properly |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigil v. State, 926 P.2d 351 (Wyo. 1996) (guides 404(b) balancing test for prejudice and purposes)
- Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wy. 2002) (definitive framework for admission of 404(b) evidence)
- Beintema v. State, 936 P.2d 1221 (Wyo. 1997) (trial court to perform 404(b) analysis; abuse of discretion standard)
- Capellen v. State, 161 P.3d 1076 (Wy. 2007) (allowing consideration of dismissed charges or reports at sentencing)
- Swingholm v. State, 910 P.2d 1334 (Wy. 1996) (scope of sentencing inquiry; admissibility of related information)
- Joreski v. State, 288 P.3d 413 (Wy. 2012) (plain error standard in sentencing context)
- Noller v. State, 226 P.3d 867 (Wy. 2010) (procedural requirements for sentencing errors)
- Hubbard v. State, 175 P.3d 625 (Wy. 2008) (due process and reliance on inaccurate information in sentencing)