William Lane McGarvey v. The State of Wyoming
2014 Wyo. LEXIS 107
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- In December 2010 TM was driven by McGarvey to Reliance; McGarvey forced TM to perform oral sex, tore her clothing, and pulled hair; TM sought help and biological evidence was collected.
- Detectives located McGarvey the next day; he consented to an interview and to collection of biological samples and later admitted forcing TM to have sex; he was not arrested until two days later.
- McGarvey initially pled guilty to forced oral sex, withdrew the plea, hired new counsel, moved to suppress pre‑Miranda statements, and moved under Wyoming’s rape‑shield statute to admit evidence suggesting TM had sexual contact with another man earlier that night.
- The district court suppressed statements made before Miranda warnings, denied the rape‑shield evidence (finding it not arguably relevant), and after trial a jury convicted McGarvey of forced oral sex but acquitted him of forcible intercourse; sentence 14–18 years.
- On appeal McGarvey claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) misapplying the rape‑shield statute and DNA evidence, (2) failing to investigate alleged intoxication before the interview, and (3) failing to object to an allegedly improper prosecutorial remark in rebuttal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel misapplied rape‑shield statute / misunderstood DNA report | McGarvey: counsel failed to learn § 6‑2‑312 and DNA meaning; better advocacy would have admitted evidence showing another man’s semen, undermining TM and negating guilt | State: counsel reasonably sought a limited admissibility theory (motive/consent/credibility), recognized statutory bar, and later clarified DNA ambiguity with the lab; DNA did not identify a third donor | Court: counsel’s approach was objectively reasonable trial strategy; evidence was properly excluded and counsel was not ineffective |
| Failure to investigate intoxication before interview | McGarvey: counsel should have contacted bartender and presented evidence showing he was too intoxicated for voluntary statements, which would have led to suppression | State: record showed reasons counsel had no strong basis to expect intoxication (timing, witnesses, ability to drive, deputies’ observations); bartender subpoenaed; recorded interview available to counsel | Court: speculative claim without record support; counsel’s performance not deficient nor shown to be prejudicial |
| Failure to object to prosecutor’s rebuttal remark | McGarvey: prosecutor misstated law by saying McGarvey’s subjective belief in consent “doesn’t matter” | State: prosecutor was commenting on weight of evidence and contrasting defendant’s post‑offense statements and physical evidence, not instructing on law | Court: comment was argument on the evidence, not legal instruction; no deficient performance in failing to object |
| Overall ineffective assistance claim | McGarvey: cumulative errors deprived him of effective assistance and prejudiced outcome | State: each challenged act was reasonable or harmless; prejudice not shown given acquittal on intercourse charge and other evidence | Court: appellant failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Stogner v. State, 792 P.2d 1358 (Wyo. 1990) (purpose and scope of Wyoming rape‑shield statute)
- Moore v. State, 309 P.3d 1242 (Wyo. 2013) (standard of review for mixed questions in ineffectiveness claims)
- Jenkins v. State, 262 P.3d 552 (Wyo. 2011) (presumption of reasonable counsel and prejudice requirement)
- Dettloft v. State, 152 P.3d 376 (Wyo. 2007) (ineffective assistance review)
- United States v. Owens, 882 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir. 1989) (mixed questions review note)