Poitra v. State
2012 WY 58
Wyo.2012Background
- Poitra Jr. and two others robbed a Sheridan home; Ernst was killed during the burglary.
- The group planned burglaries beforehand and used stolen weapons; Poitra opened a window and doors for co‑defendants.
- Poitra was convicted of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy; he was sentenced to life without parole.
- Poitra sought to introduce involuntary intoxication as a defense related to akathisia from Seroquel; he had NGMI status but withdrew it.
- The court denied involuntary intoxication evidence, denied an involuntary intoxication jury instruction, denied a change of venue, and Poitra challenges sentence as arbitrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Involuntary intoxication as a defense without NGMI plea | Poitra argues involuntary intoxication is a valid defense even without NGMI entry. | State contends involuntary intoxication is not recognized without proper statutory/case groundwork. | Involuntary intoxication defense available under §7‑11‑304(a); Poitra barred by NGMI withdrawal; no error in exclusion. |
| Failure to instruct on involuntary intoxication | Poitra contends the court should have instructed on involuntary intoxication. | State argues proposed instruction is invalid absent a recognized defense. | No instructional error; defense not recognized without proper plea. |
| Denial of change of venue due to pretrial/prejudice | Poitra claims community prejudice and pretrial publicity denied a fair trial. | State argues publicity was not prejudicial enough to compel transfer. | Court did not abuse discretion; venue denial affirmed. |
| Sentence arbitrary and capricious | Poitra argues his sentence is excessive given his lesser role and non-shooting involvement. | State asserts individualized sentencing and aggravating/mitigating factors support the term. | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gustavenson v. State, 10 Wyo. 300, 68 P. 1006 (1902) (Wy. 1902) (involuntary intoxication historically recognized as defense vs. insanity)
- Rice v. State, 500 P.2d 675 (Wyo. 1972) (Wy. 1972) (insanity defense for involuntary intoxication; voluntary intoxication limits)
- Juarez, 256 P.3d 517 (Wyo. 2011) (Wy. 2011) (statutory interpretation of §7‑11‑304(a) de novo review)
- Bouwkamp v. State, 833 P.2d 486 (Wyo. 1992) (Wy. 1992) (instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law)
- Proffit v. State, 191 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2008) (Wy. 2008) (change of venue standard based on prejudice; totality of circumstances)
- Wilcox v. State, 670 P.2d 1116 (Wyo. 1983) (Wy. 1983) (prejudice not required to be ignorant of facts; focus on fair jury)
- Shaffer v. State, 640 P.2d 88 (Wyo. 1982) (Wy. 1982) (presiding considerations in voir dire and voir dire fairness)