Tucker v. State
2010 WY 162
| Wyo. | 2010Background
- Appellant Richard Tucker was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide under Wyoming statute 6-2-106(b)(i).
- The crash occurred within minutes of Tucker leaving the Lucky Five Bar; his blood alcohol content was over the legal limit.
- Two victims, K.P. and Z.P., died in the crash; Tucker survived with minor injuries.
- During trial, the State presented lay opinions from an investigating trooper about occupant positions and alcohol impairment, which Tucker challenged as expert testimony.
- The district court allowed limited lay opinion testimony and gave curative instructions; the jury found Tucker guilty on both counts.
- On appeal, Tucker argues the lay testimony was improperly admitted, the evidence was insufficient, and consecutive sentences violated double jeopardy and the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trooper's occupant-position testimony admissible as lay opinion? | Tucker | Tucker | The testimony was improper lay opinion; harmless error. |
| Was there sufficient evidence Tucker was driving and that intoxication proximate caused deaths? | State | Tucker | Yes; the State proved driving and proximate cause beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Do consecutive sentences for two deaths violate double jeopardy? | State | Tucker | No; separate offenses for separate victims; constitutional. |
| Is the consecutive-sentence regime within Eighth Amendment standards? | State | Tucker | Sentence not cruel and unusual; within proportionality framework; not extreme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmunk v. State, 714 P.2d 724 (Wy. 1986) (lay opinion limited to personal knowledge and perception)
- Peoples, 250 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2001) (lay opinion cannot import specialized knowledge)
- People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo. 2002) (officer's reconstruction may be expert testimony)
- Vigil v. State, 563 P.2d 1344 (Wy. 1977) (separate offenses for each victim under 'any human being' statute)
- Amrein v. State, 836 P.2d 862 (Wy. 1992) (ambiguity in multi-offense sentencing; rule of lenity applied)
- Tuggle v. State, 733 P.2d 610 (Wy. 1987) (unit of prosecution in single-act statutes)
- Bautista v. State, 863 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2003) (gravamen of DUI manslaughter is killing a person)
- Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (U.S. 2010) (evolving standards of decency; proportionality considerations)
- Oakley v. State, 715 P.2d 1374 (Wy. 1986) (Solem proportionality framework not always required)