315 P.3d 639
Wyo.2013Background
- Defendant LaShawn King attacked the victim with a sledgehammer during a May 6, 2011 encounter, then abducted her in her van; police located and arrested him and the victim received medical attention.
- King was tried and convicted by a jury of attempted first-degree murder, kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated assault and battery.
- Prosecution filed a W.R.E. 404(b) notice seeking to introduce prior incidents of violence between King and the victim and other alleged threats/acts to show motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake, and course of conduct.
- The district court excluded many of the prosecution’s proposed prior-act proofs (e.g., conduct toward a prior girlfriend, certain threats lacking specificity) but admitted specific prior violent acts by King against the victim after applying the Gleason factors.
- At trial the prosecution played a recorded call between King and the victim and gave jurors a transcript to follow along; the victim testified she reviewed and believed the transcript was accurate.
- Defense counsel requested a continuance to consult an expert about the recording; the court granted it conditioned on a written waiver of speedy trial, which King signed and later challenged as ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior violent acts under W.R.E. 404(b) | District court abused discretion; court improperly listed multiple purposes rather than a single, specific purpose and allowed prejudicial evidence | Prior acts against the victim were relevant to motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake, and course of conduct; court applied Gleason balancing and excluded improper/remote items | No abuse of discretion. Court reasonably identified proper purposes, applied Gleason factors, excluded unspecific/remote items, and admitted limited prior acts against the victim. |
| Jury access to transcript while playing recorded phone call | Transcript admission (even as an aid) was improper because court made no record of reliability/authentication; transcript preparer should have been examined | Transcript was authenticated by the victim (a participant) who testified she reviewed it; transcripts are permissible aids to juries | No abuse of discretion. Transcript authenticated by participant and used only as an aid; even if error, King failed to show prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel obtaining continuance & signed speedy-trial waiver | Counsel waived King’s speedy-trial right contrary to his wishes, so assistance was deficient and prejudicial | Counsel sought continuance to consult an expert—a strategic, professional decision; King shows no prejudice from delay | Claim fails. Even assuming deficiency, King did not demonstrate prejudice (no showing result would differ). |
Key Cases Cited
- Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wyo. 2002) (sets out factors and required Gleason analysis for admitting prior bad-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- Munoz v. State, 849 P.2d 1299 (Wyo. 1993) (participant testimony can authenticate a transcript of a recording)
- Rolle v. State, 236 P.3d 259 (Wyo. 2010) (district courts need not identify only one purpose for 404(b) evidence)
- Reay v. State, 176 P.3d 647 (Wyo. 2008) (prejudice from evidentiary error requires reasonable possibility verdict would be more favorable absent the error)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Munoz v. State, 307 P.3d 829 (Wyo. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for 404(b) evidentiary rulings)