Maier v. State
2012 WY 50
| Wyo. | 2012Background
- Maier was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and attempted first-degree sexual assault in Wyoming.
- The State elicited a hearsay statement through Vitale that MY told him she believed she was raped, which Maier argues was inadmissible.
- Maier failed to object to the hearsay at trial, prompting plain-error review on appeal.
- The closing argument included statements by the prosecutor likening MY to an ‘easy target’ and using an elk metaphor; Maier argues this was prosecutorial misconduct.
- Maier contends his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the hearsay and closing arguments.
- The court held that although some inadmissible hearsay was admitted, Maier was not prejudiced, and the closing argument and counsel performance were not reversible errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error by admitting hearsay | Maier contends Vitale’s testimony about MY rape belief was hearsay. | Maier argues admission violated rules on hearsay and prejudice a substantial right. | No reversible plain error; admission not prejudicial to material rights. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Maier asserts closing misstated facts and compared MY to an elk, prejudicing the jury. | Maier contends closing was improper and misleading. | No plain-error misconduct; arguments were reasonable inferences from evidence. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object | Maier claims counsel's failure to object violated Sixth Amendment protections. | State maintains defense performance was not deficient and not prejudicial. | Counsel's performance was not deficient; no prejudice established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schreibvogel v. State, 2010 WY 45 (Wy. 2010) (plain-error standard for unobjected hearsay)
- Foster v. State, 2010 WY 8 (Wy. 2010) (plain-error review prerequisites and prejudice)
- Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45 (Wy. 2002) (requirements for prior consistent statements under 801(d)(1)(B))
- Curl v. State, 898 P.2d 369 (Wy. 1995) (consistency-focused rationale for 801(d)(1)(B) admissibility)
- Marquess v. State, 2011 WY 95 (Wy. 2011) (limitation on admissibility of prior consistent statements when no charge of fabrication)
- Large v. State, 2008 WY 22 (Wy. 2008) (accusations of influence/fabrication as nonhearsay under 801(d)(1)(B))
- Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 103 (Wy. 2008) (ineffective assistance and appellate standards)
- Alicea v. State, 13 P.3d 693 (Wy. 2000) (example of improper motive accusations influencing testimony)
- Teniente v. State, 2007 WY 165 (Wy. 2007) (standard for ineffective assistance considerations)
- CSC v. State, 118 P.3d 970 (Wy. 2005) (physical-helplessness and sufficiency of evidence in sexual assault cases)