Wall v. State, 432 P.3d 516

Background

Defendant Brent Wall was convicted of first-degree sexual assault (fellatio) of his daughter MW after she reported multiple sexual acts on March 1, 2015; jury convicted on Count I, acquitted Count IV, deadlocked on Counts II–III, which were later dismissed with prejudice.
DNA testing: oral swab produced a Y-STR profile consistent with Wall (lab statistic ~1 in 1,190); labial swab yielded a weak partial Y-STR profile (common). Serology was negative for semen; autosomal testing excluded MW on dildos.
During trial a juror sent a note asking for clarification of “consistent” and “excluded”; the judge responded ex parte by giving a photocopy of a prior administrative jury instruction without notifying counsel or defendant.
Trial counsel (Public Defender) sought funding for a defense DNA expert; funding was denied, counsel retained a consultant at his own expense but did not call an expert at trial and instead cross-examined the State’s DNA witness.
Post-trial, Wall moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance (conflict of interest and failure to pursue intentional secondary DNA transfer theory) and the judge denied the motion; Wall appealed asserting (1) right to be present violation for the ex parte juror contact, and (2) ineffective assistance for conflict and inadequate pursuit of secondary transfer defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex parte juror contact	Court erred by responding to juror note without notifying Wall or counsel, violating his right to be present	Judge acted to protect jury integrity; instruction given was administrative and identical to prior instruction	Court held the ex parte contact was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (no prejudice)
Conflict of interest re: expert funding	Trial counsel feared losing Public Defender job and thus avoided calling an expert, placing counsel’s employment over Wall’s interests	Trial counsel independently retained a consultant, reasonably concluded expert testimony unnecessary, and made tactical choice	Court found no actual conflict of interest and no adverse effect on performance; no ineffective assistance
Failure to present expert on Y‑STR reliability	An expert would have undermined the lab’s Y‑STR statistics and database choice, producing reasonable doubt	Defense consultant and cross‑examination elicited favorable statistical concessions; available expert (Hampikian) did not contradict lab or opine unreliability	Court held counsel’s use of consultant and cross‑examination was reasonable; no deficient performance or prejudice
Failure to pursue intentional secondary DNA transfer theory	Counsel should have presented expert and father’s testimony showing MW could plant DNA, creating reasonable doubt	Hampikian’s testimony fit both secondary-transfer and State’s dilution theory; father’s testimony was biased/speculative and no corroborating evidence of access to items to plant DNA	Court held no reasonable probability of a different outcome; ineffective‑assistance claim denied

Key Cases Cited

Seeley v. State, 959 P.2d 170 (Wyo. 1998) (distinguishing administrative communications to jurors from substantive instructions and applying harmless‑error standard for right‑to‑be‑present violations)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (State must show constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (defendant’s presence not required when useless or merely a shadow)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (standard for conflicts of interest requiring showing that an actual conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance)
Griggs v. State, 367 P.3d 1108 (Wyo. 2016) (counsel’s internal office decisions on expert funding are relevant to—but do not control—ineffective assistance analysis)
Skinner v. State, 33 P.3d 758 (Wyo. 2001) (defendant’s right to be present at critical stages and purposes of presence)