Jones v. State

JONES, Appellant Earl Nathan below), (Defendant Wyoming, Appellee STATE below). (Plaintiff

No. Wyoming. Court

Supreme 26, 1977.

July Russell, Rawlins,

Gerald K. signed the appeared and in oral argument brief on appellant. of behalf Mendicino, Atty. Gen., V. Frank Gerald Stack, Gen., Deputy Atty. A. and Frank R. Gen., Chapman, Atty. Cheyenne, Asst. signed appeared the brief and in oral argument on behalf of appellee. GUTHRIE, J., Before C. and McCLIN- TOCK, RAPER, ROSE, THOMAS and JJ. RAPER, Justice. was

Appellant-defendant guilty found jury a district court degree of first mur- killing der in a being during human an to attempt perpetrate a robbery in violation 6-54, W.S.1957, amended,1 § and sen- 1. Section (cid:127) this case reads as follows: burglary, being, malice, causing the “Whoever perpetrate Ch. ^[*] 6-54, W.S.1957, or in the guilty purposely same ^[*] § any by administering perpetration murder in the first and as far as Jfc rape, done, was amended ^[*] arson, kills of, ^[*] premeditated pertinent robbery, or poison or attempt Jfc degree. human S.L. or to penalty tional and severable from the courses of Since Section be sentenced to course of conduct as (b) degree, “(e) Upon Kennedy of this in cases 6-54(b), course of conduct as described in if the offense does not conduct, section, conviction of murder involving imprisonment was held to be unconstitu- Wyo.1977, described provided person certain enumerated rest convicted shall 1014. 559 P.2d for the death for life.” in the first the statute subsection involve a Wyoming 10:00 a. m. day of life on for the term Johnson’s murder. tenced appeal, In this the de- car near Penitentiary. parked was residence Cason’s following Apartments issues: the Pioneer raises the at in Rawlins. fendant Richmond and returned evidence ad- the circumstantial Was pick up m. to Mrs. Cason, 2:00 who left sustain con- at trial sufficient duced apartment packed with a suitcase, her ap- viction? going on parently Houston, intent Texas. engage in mas- 2. Did possess she While did the funds neces- exculpatory evidence? suppression of sive sary trip, Cason make relying denying err in the trial court Did and defendant to get Richmond her the new trial for a based motion defendant’s money through robbery. got Cason into evidence? newly discovered upon front seat Richmond’s automobile occupied position driver, between the affirm. We shall Richmond, and the defendant. The defend- Johnson, July William On ant, man, black wearing a maroon- station, service automobile operator shirt, short-sleeved knit jeans colored shot death two different found necklace. weapon a .22 caliber one guns, stop first was at a Gas-O-Mat weapon. .38 shots caliber other where the purchased Rawlins wounds, the one in left three caused cigarettes. pack They proceeded to old investigation, After mortal. proving chest Highway past 30 and went the service sta- others, two Paula Jean and the to the outskirts of Sinclair where Rich- Richmond, Gary were arrested and Cason walking mond was seen around his car found day. was at 4:00 same Cason the and the while Cason defendant remained in car, which was parked in Richmond’s p. m. They apparently the interior. doubled back Highway to 30 about old U.S. perpendicular passed again the station heading and while station toward east of the service mile a Rawlins. stopped west toward Richmond Sinclair, was arrested Wyoming. Richmond vicinity of car in the the the and drive-in in The de- minutes later Sinclair. fewa Cason to drive. got asked Richmond out of sometime after apprehended fendant occupied the car seat the and previously trial, evening. separate In a Rich- 5:00 used the while the latter killing a was convicted of human mond seat. As to back the defendant moved the during attempt perpetrate an a being car, leaving the Cason noticed a brown affirmed, Richmond v. robbery; on his left strapped hip, holster which was P.2d Wyo.1976, a holding gun black-barreled with a brown crime was a scene the service Cason, following in- handle. Richmond’s Highway old just located off station structions, maneuvered the car east toward east Rawlins and three miles miles three until she it west stopped the service station There are other build- west of Sinclair. building and let the defendant and except area for a drive-in thea- in the ings out of the car. Richmond last saw She a mile which is located about ter the highway them run across and start Railroad The Union Pacific tracks west. walking the service toward station. As di- yards approximately 150 south located rected, drove into the Cason service station Highway 80 is the station. Interstate had attendant check oil and and to the about one-half mile north. located proceeded then about a mile water. She sitting seen highway defendant was toward where- down Sinclair car the latter she the car out view of the upon parked seat Richmond’s front Cason, girlfriend, Paula at about service station. and 6-54, case, Legislature (b) repealed Wyoming W.S.1957, in this the va- § is involved subsection amended, mandatory imposed lidity and first life sentence created a new S.L.1977, degree See statute: Ch. defendant is not affected that hold- murder on the ing. Kennedy decision, Subsequent §§ ty quite men of the Union Pacific and Four section subdued. At defendant’s re- spotting on the railroad ties Railroad quest, Davis drove to Rawlins and dropped vicinity of the service station. tracks him off his residence. 1,000 working yards about The crew was Richmond, arrest, subsequent to his made p. the station at about 3:00 m. when east of tape-recorded statement the Carbon three gun of them heard shots fired two undersheriff, County Floyd Rodabaugh. succession, lasting three to five rapid about statement made at p. about 5:15 two to three minutes seconds. Within Rodabaugh, m. Thereafter accompanied by thereafter, saw all members the crew manager, went out to the service sta- running easterly an men direction two tion to collect evidence. He found a white from the service station. One of the men string T-shirt tied around the center as a male was described black about six feet to form a hood and black electrical cord tall, wearing pounds, 145-160 a wine- safe a near the floor few feet away from shirt. The other man was a white colored place where Johnson’s body was found. shoulder-length beard and male with a hair He later searched an area about block wearing orange They shirt. went west of station and on the north side of through highway a fence north of the Highway whereupon he observed two momentarily large disappeared behind a footprints sets of which headed in a north- brush-covered mound of dirt about erly direction toward the station. The 500 feet east of the station. A few minutes tracks led to the back or west side of the later, they reappeared from brush area building and proceeded around to north split up, running black man north they disappeared end then where into Highway the white toward Interstate patch ground packed about 20 25 feet heading man east. As the black man was area, from the entrance moving away (on from the office brushy one of east object building). fly noticed an side of the workers into vicinity air path taken m., At about 6:00 sheriff Ogburn and disappeared The black man former. over a deputies Tierney and Glidden were accom- to highway cut or bank the about one-half by two of the panied railroad section men away. mile general area where the fleeing two commuting Robert Treick was from his hiding were seen men behind a brush-cover- job home in his in Rawlins to Hanna on the Tierney ed dune. sand observed two sets of the afternoon of He had left the murder. large which led to tracks sand dune about m., p. 2:50 pickup house about filled his 50 feet to the Tierney east. started digging gas heading entered and Interstate 80 ground a disturbed area of in the brush halfway east. About between Rawlins and he revolver, wherein found a .22 caliber Sinclair, up he picked a hitchhiker he whom green ski mask with eyes holes for and as a wearing described black man a wine or mouth, jersey glove brown lining with red top shirt, purple-colored tank Levi’s and glove. gray and a leather away A few feet perspiring necklace. The hitchhiker was Glidden found .38 caliber revolver. After heavily spitting out the window. At Tierney evidence, recovered the he followed request, the black man’s Treick drove him sets of tracks east of two the brush-covered Sinclair, whereupon into the outskirts of he they split up, area until whereupon he got running. out and took off Treick iden- the traced tracks which headed ain north- tified hitchhiker as the defendant. erly direction toward Interstate 80. After feet, driving Ron Davis was in about walking Sinclair on the Tierney encoun- when he way to Rawlins was down small wash waved tered a where he found a p. the defendant sometime between 3:30 holster which he brown-leather described as m. and 4:00 m. The was fitting swea- a short-barreled revolver.2 Tierney cross-examination, Tierney testimony, 2. was being On asked Your somewhat famil- “Q weapons firearms, which of the recovered would fit in iar with was this holster colloquy appears .22, as the holster. follows: it? wouldn’t fit this would which hypothesis tracks other guilt.5 to follow the than that of then continued We highway.3 again led to interstate once ultimately will state the standard of which this review court must follow in bullet from vic- caliber removed The .38 is set Blakely State, v. cases forth these matched to ballistically body tim’s 542 P.2d 857, Wyo.1975, 863: revolver retrieved from the .38 caliber explaining “An instruction circumstantial cali- dune. The two .22 sand brush-covered jury is for consumption. It does body from victim’s taken ber bullets anywise change standard of weapon matched with could not in a criminal case this review court they were mutilated.4 because stated in Harris remains OF EVIDENCE State, Wyo.1971, INSUFFICIENCY 487 P.2d 801. This will ‘view the evidence court in a light inas contends to prosecution favorable most upon cir conviction was based much as questions of law as to determine whether evidence, a standard different cumstantial evidence, there is substantial direct or by this in determin applied court should be circumstantial, both, which, or with the to such evidence was sufficient ing whether reasonable inferences that may be drawn emphasizes He his conviction. sustain ” therefrom, will sustain the verdict.’ knowledge of proof of his of direct lack State, Johnson also, commit or its robbery plan either a Wyo.1977, See State, failure of commission and the Bentley attempted Wyo. P.2d place the ser him inside 502 P.2d If we were which in his view is insufficient adopt the defendant’s evidence, vice station view of the guilty verdict because would not support court position be in thé every jury’s not exclude reasonable denying right evidence does draw infer- weapon, leaving say very another it was it wouldn’t. “A I didn’t bad No, So, just putting point in the record. I’m them. is no on there marks “Q continuing.” that it was for a short barreled I testified “A revolver, sir. Mulligan State, 5.This rule followed the .38? More like Yes, “Q “A cited, Wyo.1973, 513 P.2d and cases there .38, like the sir.” more was concerned with the effect circum- stantial evidence and the instructions which Tierney Deputy tracks led to testified that the jury. Mulligan be delivered to the should highway. dropped off He a bank which Blakely expressly overruled in rule person a disturbed area where then noticed infra, adopted concept wherein we bottom, slipped he down bank. At the had should be that circumstantial evidence evaluat- described as of tracks which he found a set jury same basis as ed direct type as the set on the same of shoe made appropriate It is to note that evidence. top of the bank. given jury the case at bar an instruction regarding circumstantial evidence which is Booker, con- Wyoming 4. Dr. James Director of State, Mulligan supra. with v. Laboratory, sistent Instruc- ballis- conducted the State Crime No. 6 reads follows: queried .22 whether the tics He tests. single-action in the revolver recovered caliber to “In order convict circumstantial evi- why provided a reason he could not area brush necessary only that the it is cir- dence weapon the two .22 from which determine all to show that the cumstances concur De- response His was: were fired. bullets crime, they committed but that fendant mis-aligned cylin- weapon is [sic]. any “The be inconsistent with other rational all angular mis-alignment Bul- [sic]. der had The evidence must lead to conclusion. weapon this strike the barrel fired from lets clearly strongly, so where and conclusion rifling They up good angle. pick don’t at an circumstantial, purely is as to ex- they badly damaged They before are marks. every hypothesis reasonable clude consistent very weapon. hard to It is leave even innocence.” Comparing comparison in a this case. make retrospect, the instruction was more In than very pointless really against test was test However, was entitled to. the defendant we getting good test. Then I wasn’t because using of not critical the trial court this case, also, that have this with the items prior since trial occurred instruction badly dam- fired bullets were two been—the Blakely opinion. they weapon aged, had from this if come and 844 facts, but would from the also be Motive has been defined as

enees “[a]n inducement, in the evidence and or that leads or weighing tempts the conflicts indulge the mind to a criminal act.” considering credibility of the witnesses. Dictionary, 1976, Law 4th Black’s Ed. improper ap- exercise of would be an This 1164; State, Buckles v. Wyo.1972, 500 P.2d usurpation of pellate review and 518, 523, 1026, cert. den. 409 U.S. 93 S.Ct. authority jury. Janski and function 475, While 34 L.Ed.2d 320. motive is not an 277; 271, State, 538 P.2d Fres Wyo.1975, v. crime, proof element of of it is not 197, 202; State, 492 P.2d Wyo.1971, quez v. conviction, essential sustain it does State, 1959, 12, Wyo. 80 336 v. P.2d Brown force in great probative determining have 794, decline defendant’s invi- 797. We guilt, especially in cases which depend on to do so. tation Knox, circumstantial evidence. State v. in this The defendant case was con 1945, 499, 18 716, 724; 236 Iowa N.W.2d degree felony-murder, first victed of 1947, 356 Taylor, 1216, Mo. felony attempted underlying 'the rob 737; 734, State, 1924, Simmons v. S.W.2d 6-54, appearing in footnote bery. Section 644, 398, 402, 111 Neb. 197 N.W. cert. den. formulating the statute the crime of is Fenton, Simmons U.S. 45 S.Ct. felony-murder. While statute is word Lewis, People 69 L.Ed. alternative,6 our in the concern is with ed 765, 768-769; 275 N.Y. N.E.2d expressed circumstances only one of the 31(1), 107-110; pp. C.J.S. Criminal Law § perpetrated is during If a homicide therein: (Criminal Law) 21 Am.Jur.2d pp. 166- § attempted robbery, the course of an 167. There is evidence acquisition deg murder in the guilty first robber money to finance Paula Cason’s intended is the attempted The basic offense Houston, Texas, trip supplied the motive ree.7 deáth which robbery and not the occurred robbery. attempted for the Mrs. Cason tes Thus, during the necessary its commission. did tified that while she not have the funds felony-murder, person intent to convict a trip, boyfriend, to make the Richmond, her circumstance, must under such a be associ promised get her that he would her the attempted robbery, ated with the not the money. knowledge The defendant’s of Mrs. necessary homicide whose elements are im desire to leave town is Cason’s shown by the State, Richmond plied by the statute. who, testimony of a witness while engaged supra. challenge appar The defendant’s in a conversation with the defendant in the failure to ently directly crime, aimed at the show morning day heard her on his part intent requisite commit regard inducement defendant with taking her to robbery.8 Texas.9 provides robbery attempted 6. This section three sets of circum that an did in fact occur. A evidence, person may summary therefore, properly stances under which is unnec- essary. convicted of the crime murder in the first First, degree: purposely if he commits the acts Davis, 9.Ron one of the witnesses who saw the malice; second, premeditated and with he presence Richmond and perpetration act commits the certain parking Apart- lot of Cason in the the Pioneer crimes; third, specified other if he commits ments, regarding testified a conversation with perpetrate attempt specified act in these pertinent testimony the defendant. His Lindsay, 1957, Wyo. 410, crimes. State v. regard thereto is as follows: 506, 510, Richmond 317 P.2d su you Did have conversation with De- “Q 1230, pra, at n. 13. 554 P.2d fendant now at the time testified to? “A Yes. 6-54, paraphrased in 7. Section as the alterna- right. you specifically All I want “Q tell provides: appropriate this case tive “Who- Jury * * * * * * the Court and what the conversation n attempt the ever you * * * * * * was that had him at that time. any robbery, perpetrate ‡ # * * * * being, guilty any kills human of. murder in trying get “A He said he was into this degree”. the first pants. chick’s any question say anything does not raise 8. of Did he else with reference “Q by sufficient evidence to whether there was show indicate what he would that? Was

845 crime; the does disclose that The record the defendant was carrying a intent was introduced in a brown-leather pistol evidence holster when direct he well-settled, however, car; got man, out a The rule black trial. described specific a is not to be of the height to commit crime defendant’s and that intent build wearing (similar a proven by direct evidence and wine-colored shirt required to be worn the evi be shown circumstantial defendant both before may but and 1961, crime) 147, after the was seen Perry, fleeing 23 Ill.2d from ser- People v. dence. vice station within 323, 327, gun cert. v. minutes after Perry den. shots 177 N.E.2d heard;10 guns, were two 868, 1035, a and Illinois, 82 mask 369 U.S. two State in a gloves brushy found area in 86; State, 1956, which v. Ind. 235 8 L.Ed.2d Sinks fleeing men momentarily 564; disappeared; 563, Martin, 484, People v. N.E.2d 133 a brown-leather holster was found 466, 880, in 1938, 85 P.2d 12 Cal.2d 884. man, of the black who in path headed a alleged offender be read may mind of an northerly 80; direction toward Interstate conduct, acts, his his words and from the defendant was identified as the may which inferences be drawn reasonable picked up on hitchhiker Interstate 80 near circumstances case. Garcia from the and place time of the crime and taken 1970, 329, 169, 172 Colo. 473 P.2d People, v. Sinclair; picked into defendant was 1970, 170; Stuart, 656, 51 Haw. 466 v. State up in and taken approx- Sinclair to Rawlins 445; Gatewood, 1950, 444, 169 P.2d State imately 30.to 45 attempt- minutes after the 392, To 679, 221 P.2d 396. otherwise Kan. robbery and ed murder. specific intent direct require proof “ * * * make impossi would evidence It is suggested that op evidence of any case where there was convict ble to alone to portunity commit the crime does intent.” not a culmination Garcia satisfy prosecution’s not burden of 473 P.2d at People, supra, that an accused proof actually committed Morris, 1929, the act. State v. 41 Wyo. 128, us, case now before there In the 406, true, P. It is however, 283 also evidence, which in the chain several links opportunity that evidence of to commit the exist together, show bonded link, is a which considered in act connection guilty the defendant’s state ence of facts, incriminating may prove other willing as a mind, participant his role but circumstantially that an accused did commit robbery. This in attempted alleged crime. v. Randecker, State defendant, following: That cludes 1971, 512, 1295, 1301; 79 Wash.2d P.2d 487 Richmond, consort of was seen frequent Jackson, 1966, 399, 101 Ariz. 420 presence Richmond and Ca- twice in 272; 270, (Evidence) P.2d Am.Jur.2d crime; day of the a motive son on the 251, pp. 299-302. § robbery attempt; three existed for the reconnoitered service sta A confederates consideration of the record in robbery de prior attempt; entirety supports its conclusion were let engaged Richmond out of the fendant and Richmond were vicinity of the scene of endeavor to rob the service station. joint car in the immediate anything tending of his face or in the case to show there movement cumstances any Sorensen, guilt. State v. said time that Nathan that he did with at that consciousness anything, head or Jones v. to his motion 1969, 503, 981, 987; reference Ariz. 455 P.2d or movement? 219 A.2d 1966, 323, 77, 242 Md. 79; Martin, he said that State Well, “A smiled. 175 Kan. 373, P.2d right. People Gregoris, other conversation All Any Cal. “Q heard? Wig you P.2d 570. Professor App.2d Paula said that if he would take flight justice “A [Cason] has from more likened its get let that she would him her her to Texas analogous conduct to the old proverb “ pants.” ‘the wicked even when no flee, man says righteous are bold as but pursueth; flight the com- 10. The fact of after person ” Wigmore, II 3rd Evidence, lion.’ ed. is admissible as evidence of a crime mission 276(4), 111-119. § pp. along with other cir- which be considered may is no 6'. coroner; the defendant claims there of the deputy

847 must be three-pronged Supreme test that 342. The opinion A Court discussed to determine of the cases application in nondisclosure the rule applied Brady to three process categories of has oc of a violation due and concluded distinct cases whether Maryland rule v. Brady prosecutor’s the of the obligation under to disclose curred Illinois, succinctly possession in Moore v. in his set forth that would be 2562, 786, 33 L.Ed.2d the 1972, depending 92 defense 408 U.S. S.Ct. material varied 87, den., 897, 34 409 93 706, analytic categories reh. U.S. S.Ct. the situation. upon 155, following wherein it was said: circumstanc- the factual L.Ed.2d involved (a) perjured of prosecutorial es: tolerance Brady the is the holding heart of “The (b) prosecutorial testimony; suppression af- evidence, in suppression of prosecution’s request by the defense for specific ter a request, production of a defense the face evidence; (c) request, exculpatory or the evidence is favorable where one, by the guilt general a defense for ex- and is material either accused then, (a) evidence. Important, culpatory punishment. after a prosecution suppression category genesis The first finds its defense, (b) the evidence’s by the request Holohan, 103, 1935, v. Mooney 294 U.S. 55 defense, and character for the favorable 791, 340, 406, 79 L.Ed. reh. 98 A.L.R. S.Ct. materiality the evidence. of (c) 732, Mooney, parte Ex 294 U.S. 55 den. ” * * * 794-795,13 408 U.S. at 92 S.Ct. 1261, 511, L.Ed. which held that 79 S.Ct. 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d at 713. at deception jury by of court and deliberate testimony has of Brady presentation rule been discussed known false specific a rudimentary context of de- Supreme Court is “inconsistent 112, justice”. for information 294 55 by defense counsel of at S.Ct. request mands U.S. holding 342, that a to make such L.Ed. at 794. cases Subsequent failure 79 without prosecutor’s perjured a waiver of the that known use of testi- request is have held a provide unsolicited) an accused excul- mony (even fundamentally obligation Illinois, v. e.g., unfair, See Moore evidence. conviction must be set aside patory however, engen- language, has This if there is reasonable likelihood that supra. confusion, of could significant testimony amount have affected the false dered inter- generally jury. Giglio the courts have of the v. judgment while United States, 1972, 150,154, 763, Brady covering suppres- rule as 405 U.S. 92 S.Ct. preted evidence,14 Napue unrequested People there re- L.Ed.2d v. of sion Illinois, 1959, 264, 271, lack of problem whether the 360 U.S. mained n 1173,3 standard of L.Ed.2d 1217. A strict standard request required higher S.Ct. materiality materiality which must be met before non- has been in these employed dep- truth-seeking function of could be held to constitute because disclosure cases process. corrupted, prosecuto- due United trial has been States rivation 147-148; 138, present. Keogh, 2 Cir. 391 F.2d misconduct rial Janing, supra, 489 F.2d at 475. Evans category is characterized The second Maryland, supra, attempt problems Brady to resolve these wherein the de- An Agurs, pretrial forthcoming request spe- had made United States fense Supreme 49 L.Ed.2d evidence. Court said 427 U.S. cific * * * negate complete prosecutor make a that tends to and detailed accused, mitigate degree accounting police guilt to the defense of all investi- offense, punishment.” gatory case.” or reduce the work on a 408 U.S. at finding There must first be a S.Ct. at Brady reading from a rule 13. It is clear materiality Brady under before disclosure States does the United Constitution compelled. significant test is This limita- prosecutor complete require allow dis- placed duty on the which is disclosure. covery files as a matter of of an accused’s Agurs, practice. infra. States v. United routine Annotation, generally, 34 A.L.R.3d 14. See Illinois, supra, in Moore It was noted requirement that the is “no constitutional there requirement of materiality under able validity, additional evidence of rela- Brady by is rationalized a concern that the tively importance minor might be suffi- suppressed might evidence have affected cient to create a reasonable doubt.” of the the outcome trial. The Court ex- added.) (Emphasis 427 112-113, U.S. at plained the standard of materiality in terms 96 49 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 354. by the function served a specific defense of the Our review record discloses that request: request other than a for the photographs, “ * * * is, Although course, there pretrial no requests there were by defense duty provide defense counsel with specific for counsel exculpatory material or discovery of everything unlimited known any general requests for “Brady material.” if by prosecutor, subject matter The defendant did file a request for a bill of request material, a of such or indeed if requesting the particulars names of all claiming substantial basis for materiali witnesses and prosecuting the substance of exists, it ty is reasonable to require testimony, separate their and a motion to respond prosecutor either furnish suppress any electronic surveillance infor- ing the or by submitting information possession mation in of the State. The problem judge. to the trial When the also defendant indicated on a “Pretrial Con- prosecutor receives a specific and rele ference Form” that he had not obtained full request,

vant the failure any to make discovery from the seldom, ever, State. The re- response is excusable.” Agurs, plied that it had supra, United 427 disclosed to defense coun- States U.S. at 96 at 49 any “Brady S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at 351. material” sel of which it had knowledge. category The third embraces those cases request request wherein no is made or the appendix In of the defendant’s “Brady for material” or “for anything ex- 15 appears the affidavit brief of trial counsel culpatory.” Supreme pre- Court defendant, stating for pretrial that a stringent scribed a more standard for this held conference was before judge the trial category before a violation can be estab- it was orally stipulated wherein between lished: counsel and the defense prosecuting attor proper “The materiality standard of must all evidence ney that and exhibits with re overriding reflect our concern with the * * * gard given to the case would be justice finding guilt. upon being obtained by the the omitted evidence creates a rea- [I]f pretrial that no conference order was sonable doubt that did not otherwise ex- entered because judge the trial wanted ist, constitutional error has been commit- submitted briefs on the defendant’s motion ted. This means that the omission must alleged relative to suppression of be evaluated in the context of the entire prosecution, that record. If there is no the motion was reasonable doubt guilt about whether or not the withdrawn additional later because defense counsel considered, evidence is justifi- there is no did not know of the extent alleged cation for new trial. On the other suppression. The affidavit is an improper hand, if the verdict is already question- attempt to correct the so, record.16 Even Supreme 15. The Court clearly concluded supportive there dence is so of a claim of significant was no difference between cases in gives innocence that it notice general request which there has been a for duty produce, duty equal- should ” exculpatory evidence and * * * cases in which no ly request arise even if no is made. request opined has been made. The Court Agurs, supra, United States v. 427 U.S. at general request 106-107, 49 L.Ed.2d at 351. “ * * * really gives prosecutor no bet- proper 16. The method to correct the record is request ter notice than if no is made. If there prescribed by 75(d), Rule W.R.C.P.: duty respond general request is a to a kind, “If difference arises as obviously it must derive to whether from the truly exculpatory record character of discloses what certain occurred in the evidence in court, prosecutor. the hands of the But if district the difference the evi- shall be sub- request. no more service sweeping processing. Twenty prints than out discloses that, excep- can deduce We processed developed, could not of the 80 only a re- photographs, general prints, together negatives, with 13 “Brady other material” quest for was made. produced for use at the trial. The were contends that balance of only the photographs Since negatives produced prints requested specifically counsel defense prosecu- either sheriff’s office or trial, materiality prior to standard tion. regard thereto will be judged by specific-request of Agurs standard. Each The record discloses that undersheriff Ro- evi nonimpeachment the other items of pic- dabaugh took between four and five scrutiny governed by the dence under body the victim’s turned tures of before he materiality and stricter standard of third investigation of the scene of the crime the words, Agurs. in In other the articulated deputy up to Bashford. Bashford used over evidence must undisclosed create a reasona (or and half rolls one of film about about defendant’s which guilt ble doubt the photographing body, in the the pictures) not exist. It be did otherwise must not the building footprints and the interior a precondition that to forgotten a consider large the sand-dune near brush-covered the requirement under both tests is ation fleeing into which the mo- area murderers the undisclosed evidence have a favor that mentarily disappeared. testi- Rodabaugh character to the able defendant. Moore that the remainder of the four rolls of fied Illinois, supra. pictures included taken in connection film examining Before the significance Thus, investigations. other the record evidence, of the of each undisclosed items of about 35 were tak- photographs that shows necessary emphasize it that this case murder, with the in connection Johnson en not involve the common cir does factual photographs produced these were 17 of and discovery potentially cumstance wherein eventually request and at the defendant’s exculpatory information occurs after the at trial. It is reasonable to infer introduced trial of the case. The fact each item prints of the undisclosed that some missing scrutiny of evidence under the be number which could not included to the While it jury. known is not our developed. speculate as to function what effect at trial in- decision, photographs introduced jury’s information had on the The was, nevertheless, footprints a factor not and the interi- prevalent pictures of cluded cases. most non-disclosure the building. Apparently, or of body pro- were not victim’s pictures sup- The defendant claims that the State record, however, sub- reveals duced. pressed 43 and photographs negatives testimony of several witnesses stantial allegedly pictures which included of the identity regard description to the victim, body of the the interior of the ser- victim, entry the bullet the nature and footprints station and the in the brush vice position body rela- wounds building. east of defendant’s area if building. interior of the Even tive to the is apparently arithmetic derived from testi- inadvertently sup- photographs were 31, 1974, these which that on mony July showed has to show failed pressed, four County the Carbon sheriff’s office took defense, film, favorable character containing exposures, their rolls of each so, claim- and, a film that a substantial basis for drug to a store to be forwarded to if court, supreme proper suggestion by or the and the mitted to settled court initiative, may If direct that the made conform the truth. or of its own record corrected, party anything be to either is omitted or misstatement material omission necessary supplemental cer- or is record be the record error accident that a from misstated therein, questions parties by stipulation, as All other and transmitted. tified court, shall content the record district either before or after to the form and or the record is transmitted court, supreme supreme presented to court.” regard guns identified or materiality existed with introduced into ing their evidence. guilt or either innocence. It should also be noted that the .22 caliber weapon, found buried in the brush-covered station manager of the service dune, was expert sand described 30, 1974, July he saw a .22 that on testified having’ angular misalignment witness of the victim’s rifle in bedroom caliber which cylinder damaged any bullet the same build (located in living quarters discharged therefrom. Whatever favorable top ing) and a .22 caliber revolver have may been inference drawn from the which was a few feet in a desk drawer particular of this weapon was introduction positioned body away from jury’s knowledge counterbalanced doorway between the office and stor of the other two .22 existence caliber guns were owned age room. Both and the fact four weapons, manager the station asked victim. When fired .22 caliber cartridge seven cases sub- investigating officers that eve two test to ballistics were not matched to mitted revolver, they needed the .22 ning whether weapon received into evidence. The it was needed. they responded shows that the defense record further relied The defendant contends that inasmuch as on these facts in his cross-examination and the bullets taken from the victim’s two of closing argument. The defendant had the fatal, were .22 body, one of which full benefit of cloud cast the pres- caliber, ballistically could not be which weapons ence of other at the murder site. any weapon, the existence of up matched .38 caliber weapons weapon The found the two additional .22 caliber in- buried building away to the feet from side of the was material few the .22 revolver was question guilt ballistically or innocence. The circum- matched up with the .38 caliber surrounding part stances failure on the removed from the bullet victim’s head. The preserve the sheriff’s office to at least the of this fact existence is critical to the de- handgun comport does not with sound in- argument, fendant’s inasmuch as he was vestigative practices, and its nondisclosure carrying gun seen inside of a brown-leath- certainly is favorable to the defense.17 This immediately prior er holster to the commis- evidence, however, undisclosed does not cre- of the sion brown-leather hol- crime. ate a reasonable doubt about defend- path found in the of the fleeing ster black guilt exist, did ant’s which not otherwise designed described as man was for a small- and, thus, question is not material to the gun, barreled similar to a .38. The intro- guilt or innocence. of the duction additional .22 weapons does not rebut the evidence that the .38 revolver

While the two .22 caliber bullets removed mutilated, in connection was used with the crime and body from were it must be remembered that a .22 was found a few they away could never be iden- feet from type gun tified as to the .38. The they from the discarded inference to be regardless were fired of the number of drawn is obvious. “ * * * jurisdictions

17. A have held that number of makes [I]t no difference if the suppressed by police withholding where evidence is [law officials enforcement] jurisdic- other law enforcement officials of the prosecutor. police other than case, prose- trying prosecution, tion cutor, rather than part and the also taint on may provided they, a conviction be overturned the trial is no less rather than the requirements the met, notwithstanding of constitutional error are Attorney, guilty State’s of the nondis- knowledge the lack of on police If the allow closure. the State’s Attor- part prosecutor. Some courts re- ney produce pointing guilt evidence knowledge part prosecutor quire on informing without him of other evidence in police suppression and the defendant before possession their which contradicts this infer- ground setting as a can be considered aside ence, practicing deception state officers are Annotation, generally, See a conviction. Attorney the State’s not but on the * * *” leading A.L.R.3d 74. The case in the the defendant. court and 331 F.2d Warden, Maryland area is Barbee v. Penitentia- at 846. court, ry, As stated the rationale infra. for the rule is: already evaluated the evidence the service station account, We have bank and the that it trial and have concluded money clip at adduced returned to the station. support jury’s finding The defendant was sufficient contends that nonpro- beyond a reasonable doubt. guilt of this negates duction the finding building of two .22 presence robbery attempt fact of a and is thus material to used in weapons other than the one question punishment, viz, caliber the exist- finding, espe- does not alter this money murder ence of near the body victim’s could light jury of the fact that did to the cially suggest jury that no robbery was attempted, hence, nondisclosure. This is not a of their know no felony-murder only slight sup- the verdict has was committed. case where “additional evidence of rela- wherein port again, these Once facts were known to importance might minor be sufficient tively had jury to be considered in their a reasonable doubt.” to create United on the question deliberations of whether Agurs, supra, at States U.S. attempted there was an robbery. The de- 49 L.Ed.2d at 355. argument fendant’s also ignores the exist- ence of other Warden, evidence in the Barbee v. Maryland The case of record which strongly suggests that Penitentiary, Cir. 331 F.2d attempted Richmond to rob the applicable facts of this case. In station. customarily The victim kept case, petitioner’s currency fold- pro- revolver was clip right-hand ed in a in his shirt court, pocket. open formally marked for duced torn, pocket and, The shirt had been interrogated identification witnesses money lying was found beside the victim’s regard prosecutor, thereto. The how- body. It is not suggest unreasonable to ever, produce report did not the ballistics money if the had a bullet hole through gun which indicated that the was not used it, perpetrator the holdup the would not shooting police in the of a officer. The having want to risk incriminating such evi- Appeals Fourth Circuit Court of said that possession. in his dence The nonproduction presentation gun the in this manner “ * * * evidence, when considered with oth- suggest could not fail to an robbery er evidence of a attempt, does not inference that this was the weapon used create a reasonable doubt that did not oth- to commit the offense for which Barbee * * * regard erwise exist to the defendant’s produced, was on trial. Once it participation attempted holdup. appropriate impera- became but any tive that additional evidence concern- The defendant also claims that ing gun the be made available to substan- suppression occurred connection with the suggested tiate or to refute the inference. of Richmond’s sale automobile and the re * * * We say modeling cannot that the trier of of the interior of the service sta given have weight fact would to the tion. Neither his brief to this court nor report expert’s testimony. ballistics or the argument in oral did he address himself to ” * * * F.2d at alleged the errors in connection with this evidence. We will not consider these mat Rodabaugh depu Undersheriff appeal. State, ters on Wyo.1977, Salaz v. ty currency discovered folded in a Glidden 561 P.2d Buckles v. supra. If in money clip lying which was on the floor exist, fact such errors do they are not fun body. victim’s the This item of evi near damental, requiring reversal. by deputy county was removed the dence picked up body. when he the coroner the It is defendant’s next conten money clip were collected the sta tion that two items of the evidence under manager’s following wife on the day scrutiny could have been used in the cross- mortuary. was at the while she She testi key examination of prosecution witnesses. that she received in bills fied $145.00 This claim is directed primarily at the cir through which was a hole about the size of cumstances involving testimony of John pencil money deposited head. was in Musgrave. Musgrave testified on cross-ex- prior produce four months anees that he would tape that about animation if it found, trial, tape-recorded made a state- could be he that all efforts were being made to county attorney, locate it. The trial deputy to the court

ment granted defense Bates, request then counsel’s which was witnessed C. L. late tape the witness until was pro- detain Rodabaugh. Defense counsel undersheriff duced. request production made a for then he could use it to cross-examine tape so that later, days agreed A few defense counsel attorney’s reply The county witness.18 Musgrave since he to excuse had been ad- was the defense welcome to county attorney tape vised inasmuch as Mr. Bates was de- tape, county attorney but unavailable. The not- record his ceased, had to be made as to its ed for the office could not inquiry tape from the effects of the late locate Defense counsel continued whereabouts. The trial Mr. Bates. court then excused interrogation which he witness Musgrave.19 again interrupted with another demand for tape, coupled with a re- production taped The defendant claims n the witness until such time quest detain Musgrave statement essential to test county attorney complied with the as the credibility testimony since his conflicted county attorney made assur- Paula respects. demand. with that of Cason in two “ * * * legislative history the briefs 18. While submitted to this court do [A]s makes applicability, clear, the rule’s this is a not mention holding Act the Jencks ‘reaffirms’ our request States, in which defense counsel made a case Jencks v. United 353 U.S. production for of evidence which conforms to 1 L.Ed.2d that the provided 18(c)(1), procedure for under Rule on trial in a federal criminal entitled, W.R.Cr.P.: impeachment purposes, to rele- competent govern- vant and statements of a called testi- “After a witness the State has possession examination, shall, ment witness of the Govern- fied on direct the court touching defendant, ment the events or activities as to motion of the order the State to any (as has produce which the witness testified statement hereinafter trial. defined) Sess, possession Rep Cong, of the witness in the S No. 85th 1st subject Rep Cong, the State which relates to matter as H And see R No. 85th 1st pp. the witness has testified. If to which Sess 3-4. The command of the statute designed such just entire contents statement relate to further fair is thus subject testimony matter of the justice, goal of criminal administration witness, the shall order judiciary court be deliv- special guardian.” which the is the directly ered defendant for his exami- colloquy regard 19. The with to the unavailabili- nation and use." ty appears tape follows: W.R.Cr.P., 18(c), Rule is from derived the so- Honor, Your “MR. WHITAKER: we had one Act, 18, 3500, U.S.C.A.; called Jencks Title § that Mr. Hall and I more witness have talked State, Wyo.1972, DeLuna v. Accordingly, 501 P.2d' 1021. excused, Musgrave was about. Mr. and we rely we will on federal cases try going tape were made, use a that he had arriving proper at a solution to the issue raised taped purpose for the statement in this case. Since that 18(c)(4) cross-examination. time we have Rule only limits access to the State’s files to tape Mr. Hall been advised that is those materials which fit in the definition in- unavailable. of “statement” of cludes, State’s witness which alia, “So, point recording keeping inter of an oral state- there is Mr. Mus- purpose tape gone. grave ment. It was the of the Jencks Act to is around impeach- also, your the use of such statements to restrict “MR. HALL: Let the record show prosecution. Honor, my called very ment of witnesses office has that made a dili- 1024, quoting DeLuna v. 501 P.2d at gent tape among effort recover States, 1959, v. United 360 U.S. my Bates, from Palermo 343, 349, deputy, effects of late Mr. L. C. 1217, 1287, 3 L.Ed.2d reh. 79 S.Ct. May just who died 26. We can’t find them. 41, 855, 80 S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d 94. A den. 361 U.S. right. you All “COURT: Do want to excuse Campbell complete is found in more statement them both? 1961, 85, 92, States, United 365 U.S. 81 S.Ct. v. “MR. WHITAKER: Yes. 421, 425, 428, remand, Cir., on 1 296 5 L.Ed.2d may excused, right. All “COURT: He Mr. D.C., 905, 527, remand, F.Supp. on 199 F.2d Musgrave.” 747, Cir., supplemented 1 303 F.2d affirmed 1 No misconduct is evident. 747, remand, D.C., Cir., on 206 303 F.2d F.Supp. 213:

853 version, Lewis v. of the witness’ testimony. United Mrs. Cason’s First, contrary to in States, 1965, 678, that he saw the 8 Cir. 340 F.2d Musgrave said 682. Once and Cason about of Richmond it is established that the statement presence is dis- morning day on the coverable, in the the defendant has an absolute 10:00 arises out Second, conflict alternative, another right production, to its or in the crime. that he saw statement Musgrave’s the testimony could have of the witness the two codefendants if the State refuses comply stricken 2:00 and between outskirts Sinclair 18(c)(1) (3), order. Rule W.R.Cr.P. to be The inference afternoon. 3:00 that of the trial court to produc- Failure order testimony was that from drawn tion of discoverable statements is reversible “casing” the ser- States, v. confederates Clancy three United 1961, error. 365 however, defendant, fails vice station. 312, 645, 81 S.Ct. 5 U.S. L.Ed.2d 574. testimony was Musgrave’s mention The burden rests on the defend least one witness in both by at corroborated Rule 18(c) to invoke the proper ant time instances. proper manner so taped statement Musgrave’s the trial court for to make an possible ap Rule provisions under squarely falls Ogden inquiry request. into his propriate W.R.Cr.P., require which the State 18(c), States, supra, v. United 303 F.2d at of witness who any statement produce States, supra; Lewis v. United United after the but called Annunziato, v. 1961, 2 Cir. States 293 F.2d examination. on direct has testified witness 919, 373, 240, 368 82 cert. den. U.S. S.Ct. 7 en Brady rule automatically does not 134. It is possible L.Ed.2d for the defend a Rule to disclosure of the defense title request production ant to abandon to the direct testimo 18(c) prior statement 18(c) Rule which forecloses under his rais witness. United prosecution’s ny respect issue with thereto on ing any ap 670, Harris, 1972, 458 F.2d 5 Cir. States States, supra, peal. Lewis United 340 States, 409 v. United den. Scott 676, cert. bar, F.2d at 682. In the case at we can only 888, 195, Leg L.Ed.2d 145. 34 93 S.Ct. U.S. that when agreed conclude defense counsel it clear that it was history makes islative Musgrave, put the witness he to excuse to authorize broad disclosures intended juncture, to rest. At this counsel matter Ogden investigative files. of the state’s Musgrave’s moved to have could have testi States, 724, 9 Cir. 303 F.2d United mony stricken from the record because of Cir., 323 F.2d after remand appeal produce taped failure to the State’s 376 U.S. cert. den. Musgrave purportedly statement require and the fundamental L.Ed.2d made, 18(c)(2) under or for order Rule compel the process do not of due ments county attorney deliver its file on of state prior to trial disclosure premature inspection. for an in camera Musgrave He discovery under ultimately subject to ments This case similarity neither. bears some did Montos, rule. Cf. United States Paroutian, to United States Cir. 215, 221, 1970, cert. den. 397 421 F.2d Cir. 661, 981, cert. den. 375 84 F.2d U.S. 319 1022, 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 532. 90 S.Ct. U.S. 494,11 426, L.Ed.2d wherein the court appropriate this statement 664: made 18(c)(1) statements Rule limits “ ** * subject Having “to matter led the district court thereunder discoverable abandoning It he was witness has testified.” to believe that to which the as producibility trial court shall order of De Almeida’s that issue provides 3500, alleged appellant to which the de under § of statements statement production hardly press the latter. be heard to the issue is entitled on motion of can fendant Annunziato, v. here. United States 293 function is limited The trial court’s cert, 373, (2 Cir.), denied, requested material F.2d 382 368 of whether question and, 240, 18(c)(4) 919, 7 L.Ed.2d 134 under Rule 82 S.Ct. a “statement” U.S. v. Klinghoffer United States so, subject (1961); matter whether it relates to Realty Corp., (2 Bros. 285 F.2d 487 Cir. trial court shall not be the basis for the 1960); Watts, v. see United States reversal of the conviction unless an abuse of (2 1963).” F.2d Cir. is affirmatively discretion shown. Daellen State, 679; v. Wyo.1977, bach 562 P.2d Bal holding by is bolstered the defendant’s Our State, linger 307; Wyo.1968, v. 305, 437 P.2d tape to include the cassette failure in his State, Opie Wyo.1967,422 P.2d 85. In evidentiary hearing for an post-trial motion appendix of the defendant’s brief to alleged suppression to determine of cer appears letter, this court September dated urge do tain itemized evidence. We 22, 1975, wherein the trial court notified 18(c) given overly Rule be technical defense both counsel of its deci we interpretation, but neither do desire to deny to sion defendant’s motion. The use as a creating its device for inad permit given primary reason the court was its States, Ogden vertent error. v. United su “on the reliance affidavit of a convicted pra. which contains allegations felon at odds The defendant also asserts that he his sworn testimony in his own trial.” prior was entitled examine trial notes statement, given Richmond’s to undersher- deputy county coroner made as Rodabaugh, is in the iff record as a part of procedure day on picked followed he preliminary proceedings for issuance of up body. William Johnson’s These notes joint warrant. This directly statement by the witness were used while the stand places responsibility on the defendant memory relating refresh his to the sub shooting for the of the victim. ject testimony. matter While the Recanted testimony should be testifying witness was on cross-examina suspicion, viewed with utmost Sims tion, requested defense counsel al to be State, Wyo.1972, 495 P.2d and when a inspect lowed to the notes. The request trial, motion for new upon based recanta court, granted by the trial and we can tion, court, is denied the trial this court procedure. see error this The defend ordinarily will bound that decision. received ant what he was entitled Eck to. Espy 54 Wyo. 291, 92 P.2d People, hardt Colo. 549, 559. In Flaim State, r. Wyo.1971, 488 Gezzo, 1954, People P.2d 307 N.Y. quoted P.2d this court the following 385, 121 N.E.2d 380. language which is most appropriate We find no merit in the defendant’s claim “ ‘There is case: no form proof so unreli the prosecution engaged in massive * * * recanting able testimony. suppression of evidence exculpatory to his experienced Those in the administration of defense. law the criminal know well its untrust ” worthy character.’ 488 P.2d at 155. DENIAL OF NEW TRIAL suggested It is af Richmond’s assign- defendant asserts in his third fidavit is not testimony recantation because ment error that the trial court erroneous- testify he did not at the defendant’s trial. denied his motion for a ly new trial based Richmond, however, was offered immunity upon newly discovered evidence. mo- testify defendant’s case. He still on an signed by based affidavit testify refused to even when faced purportedly Richmond in which he admitted a contempt threat of of court citation. he had killed William Johnson while separately Richmond was tried and convict defendant, supposedly who refused to ed of a crime which involved the same go through with the re- robbery attempt, series of events for which the defendant building.. mained outside placed on trial. previous Richmond’s is clearly It within the sound dis statements were calculated to have the de grant deny cretion of the trial court to fendant shoulder responsibility a new trial upon newly and, motion for based thereby, murder exonerate himself. evidence, and discovered the action of the The fact that Richmond and the defendant for the same acts does separately tried recanting character of the alter affidavit. We find no abuse of former’s in the trial court’s action.

discretion fair received a trial and no error.

there

Affirmed.

GUTHRIE, J., and THOMAS and C. JJ.,

ROSE, concur.

McCLINTOCK, J., concurring specially opinion. Justice,

McCLINTOCK, specially concur-

ring. of the convic- in the affirmance

I concur has been said in and with most of what

tion However, reference therein to opinion. 542 P.2d

Blakely Wyo., of review which as to “standard

(1975) me leaves with the court must follow”

this my in dis- misgivings expressed as I

same that the I think instruc- in that case.

sent case, interpret which I given this previous line with decisions of Blakely,

court, perhaps overruled became analyze and we should law of case whether the con- determine

the evidence I with those rules. was consistent

viction comply with that re- the evidence

find concur the con- and therefore

quirement

viction. R. Matter of the Removal Earl

In

JOHNSON, Jr., a of the Peace Justice County, Wyo- and for Natrona

within

ming. 2.No.

JPR Wyoming.

Supreme Court

Aug. While Notes county places which him inside the evidence direct 7. Automobile owned by Richmond and robbery building attempt where perpetration crime; used in the of the is place, there evidence from took murder of 8. Interior service station which was two an inference can be drawn that which remodeled. building. indeed inside of the persons The governing rule circumstances, when event, it was not essential any In withholding or suppression of evidence actually be case that the defendant State’s by prosecution constitutes a sufficient building of the or that inside placed ground overturning for a defendant’s con- jury shot. The fired fatal viction,11 Brady Maryland, is stated in abettor, that as an aider and instructed 1963, 83, 1194, U.S. 10 L.Ed.2d charged principal. is as a accomplice an 215, where was it held: 6-14, If more “ W.S.1957. two or * * * Section suppression by pros- [T]he jointly engaged perpetra- are persons ecution of evidence favorable to an ac- perpetrate a rob- attempt of or an tion request upon violates cused due process during bery, being is killed its and a human where is the evidence material either to persons one of the so commission guilt punishment, or to irrespective of the then of engaged, each the offenders jointly good faith or bad faith of the prosecu- of the Rich- equally guilty homicide. 87, tion.” 373 U.S. at 1196, 83 S.Ct. at State, supra, 554 P.2d at 1233. mond at 218. L.Ed.2d from a We conclude consideration duty of disclosure is not designed to than the evidence more record society for penalize conduct of its law en- the defendant’s convic- sufficient to sustain forcement officers which upon encroaches degree felony-murder. of first tion accused’s rights constitutional but accused’s mandated fundamental right to a fair trial. Evans Janing, 8 Cir. OF SUPPRESSION EVIDENCE 470; 1973, 489 F.2d United Hibler, States v. engaged defendant claims the State 1972, 455; 463 F.2d 9 Cir. Levin v. Katzen suppression exculpatory massive of evi- bach, 1965, 158, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 363 F.2d of deprived process him due as dence 287, D.C., on remand 262 F.Supp. Fifth and Fourteenth guaranteed United States Consolidated Laundries of the United States Constitu- Amendments Corporation, 2 Cir. 291 F.2d 563. This I, Article of the Wyoming § duty is also consistent obligation with the catalog alleged A of Constitution. attorney sovereign “whose suppressed have been at the defendant’s * * * interest in a criminal following reveals the items: trial case, not that shall win a but Photographs negatives 1. justice shall be done.” He is a servant body and the interior of service sta- law whose twofold aim is to see tion; escape shall “guilt or innocence suffer.” revolver; 2. One .22 caliber Berger States, 1935, United 295 U.S. rifle; caliber 3. One .22 55 S.Ct. 79 L.Ed. 1314. See clip containing money A $145.00 also, Bar American Association Project on pencil-sized bullet hole which had bills Justice, for Criminal Standards Prosecution it; through Function, Function Defense tape pretrial A 3.11(a).12 cassette state- duty disclosure, how § witness; given by ever, ment State’s has its limitations. coverage subject, 7-103(B), Respon- 11. For an exhaustive 12. DR Code of Professional “Withholding sibility, provides pertinent part: Suppression Annotation see * * * public prosecutor Evidence Prosecution in Criminal Case “A shall make Conviction,” timely Vitiating 34 A.L.R.3d 16. disclosure to counsel for the defend- ant, counsel, or to if he has no evidence, existence known

Case Details

Case Name: Jones v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 26, 1977

Citation: 568 P.2d 837

Docket Number: 4604

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.