Triplett v. State, 406 P.3d 1257

Desmond Triplett was convicted by a Natrona County jury of one count of taking immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with a minor (TP) charged over a 28‑month date range, and three counts of second‑degree sexual abuse of a minor (KW).
The information and jury instruction for Count One alleged the offense occurred between March 1, 1975 (or 1976 as variously stated) and end of June 1977; no single specific act or date was identified at trial.
Triplett never objected in district court that the Count One information was duplicitous, never requested a bill of particulars, and did not seek a pretrial ruling under W.R.Cr.P. 12(b)(2).
Before trial the State sought to introduce 404(b) evidence; the court excluded certain evidence regarding allegations by the defendant’s daughter (JB) and ordered that counsel must approach the bench before exploring that topic.
During cross‑examination of a defense character witness (the defendant’s daughter Ms. Wilson), the prosecutor asked whether other siblings had accused the defendant of inappropriate touching (triggering a sidebar). Defense moved for a mistrial; the court limited further inquiry but denied the mistrial.
On appeal Triplett argued (1) the indecent‑liberties count was duplicitous and deprived him of a unanimous verdict and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by violating the pretrial bench‑approach order. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Triplett's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Count One was duplicitous for charging a course of conduct over 28 months without identifying a single act	Count One alleged multiple acts as one charge, risking non‑unanimous verdict and inadequate notice	Triplett waived any duplicity claim by failing to object pretrial under W.R.Cr.P. 12(b)(2)	Waived: defendant failed to raise duplicity before trial; claim not preserved for appeal
Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by asking a question possibly in violation of the court’s pretrial order regarding allegations by JB	Prosecutor disregarded the court’s order and opened inadmissible, prejudicial evidence requiring mistrial	Question was a permissible cross‑examination of a character witness under W.R.E. 404(a)/405; any procedural misstep did not prejudice defendant	No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial: question was arguably proper under Rules 404(a)/405 and was an isolated instance

Cooksey v. State, 359 Md. 1, 752 A.2d 606 (discussing duplicity as a pleading rule)
McInturff v. State, 808 P.2d 190 (Wyo. 1991) (prohibits trying/convicting for several offenses in one charge)
Schuler v. State, 181 P.3d 929 (Wyo. 2008) (duplicity waived if not raised before trial)
United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2011) (duplicity risks non‑unanimous verdict)
Ramsey v. State, 124 P.3d 756 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (discussing course‑of‑conduct statutes and duplicity)
Trujillo v. State, 880 P.2d 575 (Wyo. 1994) (character evidence may be explored on cross‑examination under Rule 404(a))