William Lane McGarvey v. The State of Wyoming, 325 P.3d 450

McGarvey was accused of forcing TM to perform oral sex and to have intercourse after giving her a ride; he initially admitted forcing her during a police interview.
He pleaded guilty to the oral-sex charge, then withdrew the plea, moved to suppress statements, and proceeded to jury trial; jury convicted him of forced oral sex but acquitted him of forced intercourse.
Defense sought to admit evidence under Wyoming’s rape-shield statute (Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-312) that (a) TM had been seen with a man earlier that night with her pants down and (b) seminal DNA from TM could not be attributed to McGarvey, arguing relevance to consent/credibility and motive to lie.
District court suppressed pre‑Miranda portions of McGarvey’s interview, denied the rape‑shield proffer as not arguably relevant, and excluded the contested evidence; the lab results showed limited/ambiguous sperm/non‑sperm fractions and did not identify a third donor.
McGarvey claimed ineffective assistance on three grounds: (1) counsel misunderstood and mishandled the rape‑shield motion and DNA interpretation; (2) counsel failed to investigate potential intoxication impairing voluntariness of his interview; (3) counsel failed to object to an alleged prosecutorial misstatement in rebuttal closing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Counsel’s handling of rape‑shield motion & DNA interpretation	Counsel failed to learn statute and DNA meaning; proper presentation would have admitted evidence and led to acquittal	Counsel timely sought admission under §6‑2‑312, argued relevance to consent/credibility, and pursued investigations; ambiguity in lab report was clarified pretrial	Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel knew statute’s reach, the proffer sought evidence the statute bars, and DNA did not support third‑donor theory; no deficient performance shown
2. Failure to investigate intoxication at interview	Counsel should have contacted witnesses (e.g., bartender) and presented intoxication evidence to suppress statements as involuntary	Counsel subpoenaed the bartender, had access to the interview recording, detectives observed no intoxication, and McGarvey’s activities suggested sobriety	Court: No ineffective assistance — record lacks support for involuntariness; speculation insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice
3. Failure to object to prosecutor’s rebuttal argument	Prosecutor misstated law by asserting McGarvey’s belief in consent “doesn’t matter”	Prosecutor’s remark was a comment on evidence (credibility/consistency) not an instruction on law; counsel reasonably declined to object	Court: No ineffective assistance — remark judged evidentiary, not legal misstatement; objection not required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Stogner v. State, 792 P.2d 1358 (purpose and scope of Wyoming rape‑shield protections)
Moore v. State, 309 P.3d 1242 (Wyom. 2013) (standard of review for mixed questions in ineffectiveness claims)
Jenkins v. State, 262 P.3d 552 (Wyom. 2011) (presumption of adequate assistance; prejudice requirement)
Dettloft v. State, 152 P.3d 376 (Wyom. 2007) (ineffectiveness framework)
United States v. Owens, 882 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir.) (mixed question review discussion)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (confession voluntariness and impeachment rules)
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (confession/involuntary statements and Miranda implications)