287 P.3d 750
Wyo.2012Background
- Mickelson was convicted in a bench trial of unlawful possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
- He challenged lay testimony about his intoxication as improper opinion evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Witnesses, including the bartender and patrons, described Mickelson's intoxicated behavior and ability to function (jukebox, conversation).
- Special agents testified Mickelson appeared drunk but could perform basic tasks; jail personnel evaluated him for over-intoxication.
- Mickelson testified he could not remember giving marijuana and that he was taking prescription meds beyond alcohol.
- The defense argued self-induced intoxication negated specific intent; the court weighed the evidence and found intent present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective? | Mickelson argues counsel failed to call an expert and to object to testimony. | Mickelson contends better strategy or witnesses could have altered outcome. | No; strategy was reasonable and prejudice not shown. |
| Did lay witnesses’ intoxication testimony invade the trier’s province? | Testimony expressed guilt-oriented inference about intoxication and intent. | Lay opinions were based on perception and helpful to determine intoxication; allowed. | Admissible lay testimony; no plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilks v. State, 49 P.3d 975 (Wyo. 2002) (lay opinion on intoxication permissible when based on perception)
- Cureton v. State, 169 P.3d 549 (Wyo. 2007) (opinion testimony not improper simply because it involves an ultimate issue)
- Brett v. State, 961 P.2d 385 (Wyo. 1998) (trial court decides whether intoxication could negate specific intent)
- Jenkins v. State, 262 P.3d 552 (Wyo. 2011) (ineffective assistance standard requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- McCoy v. State, 886 P.2d 252 (Wyo. 1994) (expert testimony may be required to establish deficieny and impact on outcome)
- Bloomquist v. State, 914 P.2d 812 (Wyo. 1996) (availability and necessity of expert testimony; affect on defense strategy)
- Feeney v. State, 714 P.2d 1229 (Wyo. 1986) (presumption of trial court's ability to disregard improperly admitted evidence)
- Gailey v. State, 882 P.2d 888 (Wyo. 1994) (trial court sifts relevant versus improper evidence)
- Mapp v. State, 953 P.2d 140 (Wyo. 1998) (prosecutor must demonstrate objections or strategy underpinning trial decisions)
- Brock v. State, 272 P.3d 933 (Wyo. 2012) (decision on witness selection as trial strategy)