Rodriguez v. State, 2010 WY 170

Rodriguez was convicted of a felony battery of a household member, third or subsequent offense, under Wyoming statute § 6-2-501(f)(ii).
The January 9, 2009 incident involved RH, Rodriguez’s girlfriend, arguing in a car; RH jumped out and fled toward a house.
Three electrical workers witnessed parts of the confrontation and testified to RH fleeing, struck by a book bag, and Rodriguez pushing and striking RH.
A police officer interviewed RH and Rodriguez; RH later testified for the defense denying that Rodriguez hit her.
The district court admitted prior bad acts evidence (four prior batteries/related pleas) under 404(b) to show lack of mistake and to explain the history of conduct, and the jury heard RH’s testimony with the defense calling RH as a witness.
Rodriguez appealed asserting Confrontation Clause issues, improper burden shifting, ineffective assistance, and improper 404(b) evidence; the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation clause – admission of RH’s statements through the officer	Rodriguez argues RH was unavailable and the statements were testimonial hearsay.	State did not violate confrontation because RH was available and opportunity to confront existed; defense chose to call RH.	No violation; RH was available and defense exercised the option to call her; no confrontation error.
Burden shifting at judgment of acquittal	State’s handling or defense’s responsibility improperly shifted burden.	District court merely noted RH’s availability; defense chose whether to call her; no burden shift.	No improper burden shifting.
Ineffective assistance of counsel regarding hearsay and call of RH	Failure to object to hearsay and calling RH were deficient performance prejudicing Rodriguez.	Counsel's actions could be strategic; objections may have been unproductive or tactically unwise.	No ineffective assistance; defense strategy and the evidence anyway supported conviction.
Admissibility of prior bad acts under 404(b)	Prosecution offered prior domestic-violence acts to show lack of mistake and course of conduct.	Acts shown to be relevant to history and context, not merely to bolster character; probative value outweighs prejudice.	Admission of 404(b) evidence affirmed; proper purpose, relevance, and balancing supported admission.

Proffit v. State, 191 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2008) (Confrontation and hearsay issues reviewed de novo; availability of witness matters.)
Harper v. State, 970 P.2d 400 (Wyo. 1998) (Burden of proof never shifts to defense; guiding principle.)
Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wyo. 2002) (404(b) analysis framework for prior bad acts; admissibility depends on purpose and prejudice.)
Vigil v. State, 926 P.2d 351 (Wyo. 1996) (Prior bad act evidence evaluated under Vigil/Herndon framework.)
Streitmatter v. State, 981 P.2d 921 (Wyo. 1999) (Excited utterance and hearsay exceptions in context of police testimony.)
Sarr v. State, 166 P.3d 891 (Wyo. 2007) (Contextual history and course of conduct admissibility.)
Thomas v. State, 131 P.3d 348 (Wyo. 2006) (Background evidence helps explain current event and rebut defenses.)
Wilks v. State, 49 P.3d 975 (Wyo. 2002) (Harm assessment for evidentiary error; reasonable possibility standard.)