*1 claim that the We next NJC’s provision Wyo.Stat. §
venue found 14-6- impairs unconstitutional because it process. argues to due NJC that due
process requires finding of venue in crimi juvenile proceedings,
nal matters are crimi proceedings,
nal and a court must have venue juvenile delinquency case. hear As dis above, juvenile delinquency
cussed determi special proceedings,
nations are not criminal
proceedings. proper it is Venue through
vested in the district court a statute passed by legislature pursuant
which was authority. grant
to a constitutional Since proper,
venue is NJC’s conclusion to the
contrary fails. NJC’s due fail.
cess claim must also
IV. CONCLUSION
The decision of the district court is af-
firmed.
Christopher KLEINSCHMIDT,
Appellant (Defendant), Wyoming,
The STATE of (Plaintiff).
Appellee Hackl,
Sylvia Defender; Lee State Public Comia, Counsel; Deborah Appellate (argued), Donna D. Hoffdahl Assistant Counsel, pellate Appellant. for Hill, General; Attorney William U. Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy General; Attorney D. Mi- Pauling, Attorney chael Senior Assistant General; Kimberly (argued), A. Baker General, Attorney Assistant for *2 THOMAS, DISCUSSION GOLDEN, C.J., and Before LEHMAN, and JJ. TAYLOR Speedy Trial days
Appellant’s began after he LEHMAN, arraigned. Appellant urges Justice. was trial, right citing to a denied his of first Appellant appeals his conviction McDermott u 897 R2d State> assault, aggravated kidnaping degree sexual ^01996) wherein we stated minor, asserting with a and indecent liberties wag mandatory right speedy trial was denied his that he , , , „ , by failing pertinent part: ... Rule 48 states in(b) sup- erred to and that the court Speedy t rial. prior acts. press evidence of bad * * * affirm. We (2) charge brought A criminal shall be days following
to trial within 120 ar- provided unless continued as ISSUES in this rule. identify Appellant and the State the follow-
ing issues: (4) Continuances not to exceed six arraignment months from the date of Appellant denied his constitution- 1. Was granted by trial court as a trial? al to follows:
2. Did reversible error occur because (A) supported On motion of defendant procedure District did not follow the Court affidavit; mandated Dean (B) attorney for the On motion (Wyo.1993)? if: state or the court (i) expressly con- The defendant FACTS sents; (ii) is unavail- The state’s evidence early morning April In the hours prosecution and the has exercised able victim, seventeen-year-old girl, diligence; or due sleeping her basement bedroom. (in) by appellant’s tapping Required administra- Awakened her bed- the due window, recognized appel- justice will room the victim tion of and defendant boyfriend. Appel- substantially prejudiced; and lant as her sister’s former not be lant asked the victim to come out to his car (C) proposed by If a continuance is something because he had for her sister. court, the state or the the defendant dressed, The victim climbed out of the win- If shall be notified. the defendant to his car. dow and went objects, must show the defendant victim into car pellant then forced the writing delay may prejudice how the nearby park. and drove her to a The victim the defense. unsuccessfully escape to tried occasions, but each time she was on two (6) Any con- criminal case not tried or forcibly brought caught and back to the car. provided tinued as in this rule shall be Ultimately, appellant forced the victim into days arraignment. dismissed 120 after sexually the car and assaulted her. argument Appellant failed assault, important to the resolution After the drove the vic- First, There, the court continued the home. she woke her this issue. tim back her 120-day period. later trial three times within the sister who called 911. The victim was timely jury Appellant noti hospital. Following a and his counsel were examined at the continuance, trial, degree and no appellant was convicted of first fied of each Second, assault, any appel kidnaping posed in- was extension. aggravated request speedy trial within lant filed no decent liberties with a minor. Prior Bad Acts 120-day period. Pursuant to Rule 48(b)(2) (4)(C), there was no violation of State filed Notice of Intent to The matter trial. The court continued the offer evidence of acts or misconduct of and absent after notification *3 404(b). appellant pursuant to W.R.E. At a objection. Suppress hearing, in Motion to the State vigorous Less than assertions of the formed the court that the evidence would not given weight. trial are little chief, only in in in be used its case but the State, 1028, Yung (Wyo. v. 906 P.2d 1033 appellant testify. event chose to The court 1995). Accordingly, pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. five-part did not in articulate test set out 48, on this action could have been dismissed State, 601, (Wyo.1993). Dean v. 865 P.2d 606 day, 120-day the 120th refiled and a new ruling The basis of the court’s was that the period been afforded from the time of ar purpose proposed of the evidence went to the charges. on the refiled We ac credibility of in the event he chose knowledge type that this of claim based sole however, testify. Appellant, did not testi ly on W.R.Cr.P. 48 would be afforded little fy; and the evidence was not introduced. weight place if the trial court would on the Appellant asserts that the court’s beyond record the reason for the continuance ruling, effectively estopped tak from however, 120-day period. Technically, ing the stand for fear that the evidence required long formal not action is so as a against would be used him. proposed defendant is notified of the continu object writing. ance and does not in recognized This court- has “in cases involving misconduct[,] prior conduct It from is clear the record that the consisting perti- of bad acts is of increased starting final continuance resulted in the trial State, 244, nency.” Carey v. 715 P.2d 248 Monday, day, on a than 123rd rather (Wyo.1986). Consequently, Friday, day. the court has the 120th With no permitted from that the continuance would the use of bad acts be evidence prejudicial, it is clear that the continuance or cross-examination as rebuttal evidence required by in the court the due admin that would otherwise in not admissible justice. istration of As we stated' in Hall v. in State’s case chief. Id. the accused When State, 1364, (Wyo.1996), 911 P.2d 1370-71 consent, claims “evidence which contradicts fully W.R.Cr.P. 48 does not cover the con previous his denials of use of force in sexual cerns which be raised a constitutional encounters is assistance to the trier of fact * * possible trial claim. It defen in evaluating credibility.” Id. dant to be tried within the time limits of Rule appellant’s testimony To the extent would yet deprivation 48 and suffer a constitutional alleged have he had never forced a woman to delay due to which can be shown to have sex, have the State would have been entitled Moreover, seriously prejudiced his defense. contrary, pur- rebut with evidence to the illogical 120-day it would seem to view the State, suant to W.R.E. 405. Taul v. 862 P.2d as, itself, time limit of the rule constitu 649, (Wyo.1993). ruling 655 The court’s did tionally mandatory appellate when an court estop appellant taking not the stand. may extend that deadline when the State provisionally It did no more than allow the permitted charges to refile and thus admission of the evidence if testi- prosecution pursuant ceed with a 48(b)(6). fied such a manner as to make W.R.E. Rule 48 therefore ad 404(a)(1) applicable. and W.R.E. only 405 part dresses constitutional speédy question. trial going The evidence was therefore not to be appeal, In this we find that Rule 48 was pursuant 404(b), introduced and it W.R.E. not violated and further has was not introduced at trial. allege failed to to be considered an apply court’s failure to the Dean factors is evaluation of a- constitutional not error. claim as forth in set Cosco v. 503 P.2d 1403,1405 (Wyo.1972). Affirmed.
441 Justice, concurring. majority, agree but again, I Once I compelled separately because
I am to write analysis estab-
believe that the constitutional 514, Wingo, 407 U.S.
lished Barker (1972), L.Ed.2d 101 which we
S.Ct.
adopted in Cosco v. denied,
(Wyo.1972), 411 U.S. cert. (1973), should no
S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d deciding
longer by this Court be utilized *4 my opinion It is
speedy trial issues. dispositively addresses the cir
W.R.C.P. 48 present in this case
cumstances which are majority should have limited its accordingly.
discussion thoroughly explained my position in
I have (Wyo.1996)
Hall v. J.,
(Macy, concurring), Yung v. (Macy, (Wyo.1995)
J., specially concurring). I find that specially concurring
sentiments those
opinions appropriate to this case and are
adopt them herein. VASQUEZ;
Lori and minor children Julie Vasquez,
Vasquez, and Nathana Valerie Vasquez, BY AND their
el THROUGH mother, VASQUEZ,
next friend and Lori
Appellants, INC., STORES,
WAL-MART