Skuyler Salinas v. State, 2016 WY 97

Salinas was charged with felony stalking for violating a six‑month protective order forbidding contact with Ashley Martinez and family after an earlier Fort Collins incident; he was convicted and sentenced to 3–5 years with a boot camp recommendation.
The State gave notice under W.R.E. 404(b) of intent to introduce prior misconduct; the court excluded much of it by an order in limine but allowed four incidents (excluding testimony that Salinas was arrested/charged/pled guilty).
Defense moved to compel production of David Martinez’s cellphone/texts; the record contains no clear ruling and the State later provided screenshots of texts to defense counsel only the morning of trial.
On direct, Ashley Martinez volunteered that Salinas had active warrants; defense moved for mistrial; court struck the statement, gave a curative instruction, and denied mistrial.
The court ruled the screenshots could not be admitted as exhibits because of late disclosure but allowed live testimony about the texts; defense objected as an insufficient sanction.

Issue	Salinas’ Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying mistrial for violation of 404(b) limine order when witness mentioned warrants	The volunteered statement about warrants prejudiced Salinas and required a mistrial	The remark was unresponsive, inadvertent, not highly prejudicial; curative instruction sufficed	No abuse of discretion; court reasonably denied mistrial, struck statement, and instructed jury to disregard
Whether district court abused discretion by imposing sanction that barred screenshots but allowed testimony about late‑disclosed texts	Excluding the screenshots but permitting testimony was insufficient; prejudice required stronger sanction (e.g., exclusion of testimony)	The sanction balanced remedy and deterrence: testimony could proceed but screenshots were excluded as evidence	No abuse of discretion; limiting sanction was within court’s authority and adequately remedied discovery violation

Hill v. State, 371 P.3d 553 (Wy. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial and abuse of discretion)
McGill v. State, 357 P.3d 1140 (Wy. 2015) (mistrial is drastic remedy; curative instruction can cure volunteered testimony)
Warner v. State, 897 P.2d 472 (Wy. 1995) (mistrial reserved for highly prejudicial errors)
Toth v. State, 353 P.3d 696 (Wy. 2015) (appellate review of discovery‑sanction determinations is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Naple, 143 P.3d 358 (Wy. 2006) (factors for choosing discovery sanctions: reason for delay, prejudice, feasibility of cure)
Ceja v. State, 208 P.3d 66 (Wy. 2009) (text messages treated as written statements for disclosure purposes)