Robert Olaf Anderson v. The State of Wyoming
317 P.3d 1108
Wyo.2014Background
- Appellant convicted of felony DWUI; challenges discovery ruling and evidence admissibility, plus ineffective-assistance claim against trial counsel.
- Discovery sought IntoxNet database and related materials for the Intoximeter EC/IR II; district court denied access beyond case-specific items.
- Discovery hearing featured experts Moore (State) and Citron (appellant); court found generic IntoxNet data not materially related to appellant’s defense.
- Trial relied on Moore’s testimony about certification/maintenance; appellant did not call Citron; cross-examination focused on device reliability.
- Appellant argues Confrontation Clause error and ineffective assistance for not presenting a diabetes-defense expert; court affirms conviction.
- Court’s decision rests on statutory interpretation of § 31-6-105(e) and standard limits on discovery; plain-error review applied to confrontation issue; no ineffective-assistance prejudice shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of IntoxNet data under § 31-6-105(e)? | Wyoming statute requires full information for the test. | Data beyond the appellant’s test is discoverable to challenge accuracy. | District court did not abuse discretion; data not material to defense. |
| Confrontation Clause plain error from testimony on machine operation? | Admission violated cross-examination rights. | No objection at trial; any error is plain error. | No plain error; annual Kent certification is non-testimonial. |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling diabetes expert? | Expert could show diabetes affected breath-test results. | Counsel reasonably relied on available predicate facts; not prescient. | Trial counsel not ineffective; defense tactics reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (Brady standard for suppression not shown here)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause testimonial vs. non-testimonial)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Forensic reports are testimonial when created to serve as evidence)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (Analyst certificate testimony required; surrogate testimony not enough)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (Non-testimonial report testimony may be permissible under certain conditions)