Matthew Scott Worley v. State
2017 WY 3
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- On Thanksgiving 2013 officers responded to a 911 hang-up and interviewed Matthew Worley and his wife, Rebecca Worley; Rebecca reported physical injuries and sexual assaults.
- Police observed cut marks on Rebecca’s collarbone, a swollen right eye, and photographs showed removed moles; a cell-phone video captured Worley striking Rebecca while she performed fellatio.
- Worley admitted to cutting a mole, striking his wife, and engaging in the sexual conduct, but claimed it was consensual "rough sex."
- The State charged Worley with two counts of first-degree sexual assault (fellatio and anal), aggravated assault and battery, and battery of a household member; the jury convicted on first-degree sexual assault (fellatio) and battery of a household member, acquitting on the anal-assault and aggravated-assault counts.
- Worley appealed, arguing (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to further impeach the victim, (2) Brady violation for nondisclosure of the victim’s plea agreement, and (3) insufficiency of the evidence for the battery conviction.
- The district court denied relief after a W.R.A.P. 21 hearing; the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Worley: trial counsel failed to investigate/use victim’s criminal history and DFS statements to impeach her | State: counsel cross-examined extensively; additional impeachment would be cumulative | Affirmed — no prejudice; video, photos, and Worley’s admissions make a different outcome not reasonably probable |
| Brady violation (undisclosed plea agreement) | Worley: prosecutor failed to disclose victim’s plea agreement that would impeach her | State: record lacks the plea agreement and any material showing; disclosure would be cumulative | Affirmed — no Brady violation; absence of the agreement in record and lack of materiality presumed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for battery | Worley: jury not required to be unanimous about which act constituted bodily injury (mole removal vs. striking) | State: either or both acts supported bodily injury; unanimity on underlying means unnecessary | Affirmed — sufficient evidence; unanimity on specific act not required under precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose favorable material evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor must disclose impeachment evidence, including plea deals)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality standard for undisclosed evidence)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (no requirement jurors agree on specific underlying facts/means)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (clarifies unanimity on means is not required)
- McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (related discussion on jury agreement and factual issues)
- Griggs v. State, 367 P.3d 1108 (Wyoming precedent on review standards for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Tanner v. State, 57 P.3d 1242 (distinguished — election of alternative elements when statute contains alternatives)