Michael Allan Lindstrom
343 P.3d 792
Wyo.2015Background
- Defendant Michael Lindstrom was tried and convicted of multiple sexual offenses involving two minor victims (CS, PR) and an adult victim (TR); jury convicted on 10 counts and court imposed concurrent and consecutive long-term and life sentences.
- Allegations arose from DFS and police interviews in 2012–2013: CS (age 6) gave videotaped deposition describing digital anal penetration, forced oral sex, and being made to touch the defendant’s penis; TR described violent sexual assaults on herself and PR, including threats with a knife.
- Before trial the State filed a 404(b) notice; the district court held a pretrial 404(b) hearing and excluded certain evidence, but at trial the State introduced unlisted testimony from two witnesses that female underwear and clothes were found in the defendant’s apartment.
- Two days after CS’s videotaped deposition (which described acts different from those in the original information), the State moved to amend the information to conform counts to CS’s testimony; the court granted the amendment about a month before trial.
- Defense raised objections to the apartment evidence (character/404(b) and lack of Gleason analysis), objected after the amendment was granted, and later raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct for alleged vouching in closing argument; on appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed admissibility for abuse of discretion, amendment for due process de novo, and unobjected prosecutorial remarks for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Lindstrom's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of underwear/clothes found in defendant’s apartment (character evidence/404(b)) | Admission was improper character evidence; State failed to give 404(b) notice and court failed to apply Gleason factors | Evidence was not uncharged misconduct or, alternatively, harmless error | Court: Evidence was 404(b) character evidence; State failed to follow Gleason; admission was abuse of discretion but error was harmless given overwhelming other evidence |
| Amendment of the information to conform to CS’s videotaped deposition | Amendment after deposition prejudiced due process and right to prepare; alleged facts changed materially | Amendment did not charge a new offense, was made a month before trial, defense did not seek continuance, and defense theory (alibi/not in Buffalo) was unaffected | Court: Review de novo; amendment permissible under rule because no new offense and no substantial prejudice shown; denial of relief |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (alleged vouching in closing) | Prosecutor improperly vouched for child witnesses’ credibility | Remarks were reasonable inferences from record and quotes from testimony, not personal vouching | Court: No improper vouching; remarks were permissible argument akin to Teniente; no plain error |
| Cumulative error/cumulative prejudice | Multiple errors (admission of un-noticed character evidence, amendment, misconduct) denied fair trial | Errors were either harmless or not established; no cumulative prejudice | Court: Overall convictions affirmed; errors did not create a reasonable probability of a different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wyo. 2002) (requires pretrial notice and Gleason analysis for admission of other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
- Payseno v. State, 332 P.3d 1176 (Wyo. 2014) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; harmless-error framework)
- Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyo. 2003) (prosecutor may not personally vouch for witness credibility or offer personal guarantees)
- Teniente v. State, 169 P.3d 512 (Wyo. 2007) (distinguishes permissible argument and reasonable inferences about witness consistency from improper vouching)