Majors v. State
2011 WY 63
Wyo.2011Background
- Majors was convicted at trial of misdemeanor marijuana possession and felony ecstasy possession.
- A bailiff who participated in the investigation also served as court bailiff during trial; later, a mistrial was sought arguing due process violations.
- An audio recording of a controlled buy between Majors’ mother and a confidential informant was admitted over objection as evidence.
- The trial also involved photos showing a blue pill bottle in the black bag and a missing bottle evidence issue (spoliation/sanctions).
- The court denied sanctions for non-preservation of potential exculpatory evidence and allowed the recording, later reversing the ecstasy conviction on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bailiff as witness prejudicial error | Majors argues the bailiff’s investigation role violated due process. | Majors contends no prejudice from bailiff’s non-witness status since he wasn’t a key witness. | District court’s denial of mistrial affirmed; no reversible prejudice from bailiff’s role. |
| Admissibility of hearsay recording | Majors asserts the recording of the informant and Majors’ mother is inadmissible hearsay. | State argues non-hearsay or admissible under state-of-mind exception. | Recording inadmissible hearsay; error prejudicial to ecstasy charge, reversed on that count. |
| Sanctions for spoliation/non-preservation of evidence | Majors argues due process violation for failure to collect/preserve the blue bottle evidence. | State contends no bad faith or exculpatory value established. | No due process violation; sanctions denied; trial court properly declined sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965) (coinvestigative deputies acting as bailiffs prejudicial to trial rights)
- Romo v. State, 500 P.2d 678 (Wyo. 1972) (jurors’ contact with officers prejudicial; reversal when officer witnesses were intimately connected with prosecution)
- Ford v. Wisconsin, 742 N.W.2d 61 (Wis. 2007) (bailiff-witness proximity; reviewed for prejudice; non-prejudicial here)
- Schreibvogel v. State, 2010 WY 45, 228 P.3d 874 (Wy. 2010) (context evidence vs. hearsay; limited admissibility for non-hearsay purpose)
- Olson v. State, 698 P.2d 107 (Wyo. 1985) (non-hearsay context; limiting instruction when appropriate)
- Humphrey v. State, 2008 WY 67, 185 P.3d 1236 (Wy. 2008) (state of mind exception relevance to admissibility of statements)
- Grady v. State, 2008 WY 144, 197 P.3d 722 (Wy. 2008) (due process preservation and Trombetta/Youngblood framework)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 188? / 467 U.S. 488 (1984) (due process limits on preservation of evidence; exculpatory value reliance)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (bad faith required for certain destruction of evidence claims)