Silva v. State, 2012 WY 37

Silva convicted of aggravated burglary and attempted kidnapping for June 19, 2010, sequence where he sought to remove his estranged fiancée from a Rock Springs apartment.
Victim resisted; Silva dragged her by the hair toward the apartment entrance, prompting neighbor intervention and police arrest.
Pretrial motions: Silva sought to introduce victim’s prior intoxication-related sexual conduct; State moved to exclude; court admitted some alcohol-related but excluded sexual history as irrelevant.
Trial included extensive testimony about victim’s drinking history; court limited questions about sexual past but allowed intoxication-related evidence.
Silva requested lesser-included offenses (Attempted False Imprisonment and False Imprisonment); district court refused based on statutory elements test; verdict upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preclusion of victim’s prior conduct evidence	Silva argues pretrial/ trial evidence of victim’s sexual past was admissible to show intent	State asserts such evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial	No reversible error; evidence properly excluded
Lesser-included offense instruction	Silva sought lesser offenses (Attempted False Imprisonment, False Imprisonment)	State contends no lesser offense fits the charged removal by force	District court correctly refused the proffered lesser offenses

Edwards v. State, 167 P.3d 636 (Wy. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; prejudice burden on defendant)
Vigil v. State, 224 P.3d 31 (Wy. 2010) (prejudice analysis post-evidentiary error)
Bloomfield v. State, 234 P.3d 366 (Wy. 2010) (offers of proof and appellate impact on evidentiary rulings)
Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118 (Wy. 1993) (elements test for lesser-included offenses (Blockburger framework))
Dean v. State, 77 P.3d 692 (Wy. 2003) (application of elements-based approach to lesser-included offenses)
Schmuck II, 489 U.S. 705 (1989) (elements test for lesser-included offenses (Blockburger))
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for dual offenses: elements that one requires not required by other)
Rudolph v. State, 829 P.2d 269 (Wy. 1992) (requirement of offer of proof to preserve evidentiary rulings)
Moe v. State, 123 P.3d 148 (Wy. 2005) (proponent bears burden to show admissibility under rule)
Padilla v. State, 601 P.2d 189 (Wy. 1979) (offer of proof requirements)
Yost v. A.O. Smith Corp., 562 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1977) (contextual warrant for evidence offers)