401 P.3d 962
Wyo.2017Background
- Defendant Clinton Ray Woods was tried by jury and convicted of three counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree and one count in the third degree for sexual acts with his girlfriend’s 14‑year‑old daughter.
- Allegations arose after the alleged victim (D.O.) disclosed abuse following a domestic incident; there was no physical or forensic corroboration—case depended on D.O.’s statements and testimony.
- A pretrial forensic videotaped interview of D.O. (conducted at a children’s justice center) was played to the jury with the agreement of both parties; defense counsel explained the strategy of using the tape to highlight inconsistencies in D.O.’s statements.
- The State presented Dr. Fred Lindberg, a psychologist, to testify about general patterns of disclosure and victim behavior; neither party requested a Daubert hearing and the court did not hold one sua sponte.
- Defense counsel did not request a limiting expert instruction; both parties declined the pattern expert instruction at the instruction conference. The jury convicted on all counts; Woods appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and trial‑court error.
Issues
| Issue | Woods’ Argument | State/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Counsel ineffective for consenting to publication of forensic interview | Playing the video gave the victim a second un‑cross‑examined opportunity to testify and was deficient | Counsel reasonably used the video to show prior inconsistent statements and attack credibility; it was strategic | Not deficient: counsel made a deliberate, reasonable strategy to expose inconsistencies; no relief |
| 2) Counsel ineffective for failing to object to alleged hearsay (≈19 instances) | Counsel should have objected to multiple hearsay questions/testimony | Appellant’s briefing lacked specific citations or legal argument to show error | Not considered on merits: claim denied for inadequate briefing; affirmed |
| 3) Counsel ineffective for not objecting to State expert testimony / not seeking Daubert hearing | Expert testimony was unreliable, irrelevant, and should have been excluded; counsel deficient for not objecting | Expert testimony addressed general victim behavior (permitted); no Daubert request was made and trial court need not sua sponte hold one | Not deficient / no reversible error: testimony was proper; no Daubert required absent challenge |
| 4) Counsel and court error for failing to request / give limiting expert‑instruction | Instruction was needed to limit expert scope and guard credibility issues | Both parties declined the pattern instruction; court instructed jury on credibility and weight of evidence | No plain error: omission not prejudicial given instructions and counsel’s tactical waiver |
| 5) Cumulative prejudice from counsel’s alleged errors | Aggregate failures deprived Woods of a fair trial | Strategy to attack sole witness’s credibility was sensible; appellant failed to show reasonable probability of different outcome | No prejudice: convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeper standard for expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (trial court’s latitude in assessing expert reliability)
- Zabel v. State, 765 P.2d 357 (Wyoming: expert may explain victim behavior but not vouch for credibility)
- Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d 467 (Wyoming discussion of Daubert factors and expert ‘fit’)
- Jones v. State, 393 P.3d 1257 (Wyoming standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims)