*1 1072 illegal activity to warrant further picion nonresi- Acquiescence
tance."...
-
sufficient
not been deemed
Voluntary
have
questioning.
stance
consent obviates
trooper
necessity
determining
law to establish consent.
whether the
Wyoming
under
suspicion of crimi-
had sufficient reasonable
constitutions,
examine the
we
Under both
activity
questioning.
pursue
nal
further
if
to determine
cireumstances
totality of the
Marinaro,
was told he presence of P.3d at questioning before enforcement length coercive 413,418. other law the detention officer, could factors. consent refuse the whether enforcement Id. 19V and nature of the was 40-42, the individual request, given, officers, and Sentence of the district court is affirmed. Judgment discretion denying The district or otherwise err as a matter Latta's Motion to CONCLUSION court did not abuse its Suppress. of law totаlity of the factual light In [113] - in this we are present
cireumstances voluntary. consent was that Latta's confident stop that the initial traffic was conclude We brief, professional, was trooper's conduct
courteous, throughout and non-coercive encounter, and that length of entire WY 37 were unhesitant аnd given Latta consents NELSON, Appellant Dustin Lee clearly shows The record immediate. (Defendant), Latta and between law the initial contact enforcement, during Trooper Green which ticket, approximately warning lasted issued a Wyoming, The STATE of times, Trooper At all Green six minutes. (Plaintiff), Appellee courteous, and non- professional, remained allowed Latta to remain coercive. He No. 8-07-0299. conversation, during the entire own vehicle Supreme Wyoming. Court of if he mind if he Latta and even asked longer, told him he did spoke him a bit with March agree, asked him if he was have to questions, okay answering morе with agreed.
Latta considering the fact Even when flashing lights car's remained that the officers there were two uniformed and that totality of the cireum- present, under that Latta's consent can conclude stances we questions volun round of to a second factors, alone tary-"neither [of] [can] thesе stopped proving person be seen as go ... A that he was free to did not feel position person appellant's reasonable at the have felt that he could time would way." proceeded on his have said 'no' and 123, ¶11, 163 Marinaro v. 2007 WY P.3d Having concluded that Latta's con- voluntary, sent was we need not consider Trooper Green had reasonable sus- *2 VOIGT,C.J., GOLDEN,
Before HILL, KITE, BURKE, JJ.
GOLDEN, Justice. Appellant Dustin Lee Nelson was by jury a convicted assault and battery. Nelson seeks reversal of that con- viction based on asserted errors in the dis- trict evidentiary court's rul- ings. We affirm.
ISSUES presents
[12] Nelson these issues: I. Did the district court err when it de- compеl nied Mr. Nelson's motion to discov- ery, requesting the State to turn over in- investigation ternal and other material personnel contained in the file of the wit- officer, nessing police conducting without an in camera review of the material? pre- II. Did the district court err it when being vented the defense from able to re- police during call the officer the defense's concerning past case him expe- riences where he had been assaulted in a manner similar to the method used present case?
FACTS 9, 2006, May Sergeant Andy [13] On Department
Boisvert of the Gillette Police attempted stop gray to execute traffic of a pickup by Ford truck In driven Nelson. stopping, stead of accelerated in an During pur effort to elude the officer. suit, Nelson lost control of the truck and it up parking ended in a lot near a six-foot Lozano, Representing Appellant: Diane M. Sergeant pulled chain link fence. Boisvert Defender; Wyoming Tina N. State Public angle car behind the truck at an Kerin, Counsel; Appellate Morgan, Kirk A. escaping. block Nelson from ment Mr. Senior Assistant Morgan. Appellate Counsel. Argu- approached Sergeant Boisvert exited truck in an attempt vehicle Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salz contact Nelson. He nоticed Nelson was General; Terry burg, Wyoming Attorney frantically looking attempting L. around General; Attorney Armitage, Deputy get gear. Sergeant D. Mi- the truck into Pauling, Attorney chael Senior Assistant weapon drew his service and ordered Nelson General; Smith, Graham M. Assistant Attor- to shut off the truck and show his hands. ney Argument by obeying Sergeant General. Mr. com- Smith. Instead of Boisvert's incident, 1. At the time of the ment. patrol corporal police depart- was a with the discovery request in- get truck limited his kept trying to
mands, Nelson glance at the contained in Boisvert's back formation gear and continued into who, juncture, standing file, including reports, intеrnal in- at officer at- vehicles. After several the two assessments, between vestigations and psychological *3 in finally got his truck re- tempts, pertaining any Nelson to incidents which Ser- clutch, causing the the popped and verse geant alleged was the victim of a Boisvert "screaming back" towards Ser- gо truck to generally assault. Nelson identi- vehicular Fortunately, Sergeant Bois- geant Boisvert. incidents, involving fied two such one Mike way jump out of the before vert was able to involving Christopher Owens and the other patrol The into his car. the truck smashed instance, Sergeant Carey. In each the car impact pushed the force of pulled weapon suspects. and the his shot and into the street. feet backwards several injured Carey. No killed Owens and He back into [15] While a forward Nelson was gear, Sergeant Boisvert shifting the truck provided. Nelson further factual details suggested of these events were the records impeachment evidence indicat- might reveal grabbed pepper his weapon his and holstered ing Sergeant prone Boisvert was more to drove the truck for- spray. Nelson When ward, attempt sprayed him with to a driver's actions as an Sergeant Boisvert overreact spray attempt in an to subdue to harm him. pepper the patrol car and the into truck and A short distance truck into another him. the officer. After count of cle, camper [16] way and fled damage caused to a trailer not far Nelson, trailers back felony property destruction based on The State placed on foot. Police onto the street however, parked him under arrest. later, Nelson crashed the fence, abandoned the vehi- striking a fence and some charged camper trailers and one nearby, from Sergeant managed to evade Nelson with pursued and the abandoned Nelson made sрed away. Boisvert's Nelson one facts mately information, tory prosecutor's scope Nelson Rule 16. tion. ments, expressed [18] value of the records to the of Among of the district court denied concluded that the sought were outside the ambit of After concerns about Nelson's and the ability case. The district court ulti- other considering things, the district court to obtain discovery relevancy the propriety parties' argu- request, Nelson's mo- requested particular exculpa- records Wyoming Rules of Criminal requested information ment officers who Nelson's ties or things, any "information sequently attempting to compel ary actions taken concerning claiming that such "actions relate to conduct aggravated assault son filed a of Rule 16 and destruction count of the State The district court held a competency." with his aggravated assault and discovery pled motion, his or her charge. cause "no contеst" to the pickup not may testify in this pursuant against any law enforce- bodily injury request, Prior to disclose, subject integrity, battery charge, concerning disciplin- truck. outside to Rule 16 of the contending his trial on the State Procedure, to disclosure. among responsibili- Nelson sub- battery for Sergeant property matter," оpposed vert's hearing scope Nel- with a vehicle. vert as defense witness mony tent-that earlier Boisvert with the truck-was him July existence of a district contended the evidence would show that Ser geant contention dents in which of court that he wished to recall testimony, alleged about the two testimony in Boisvert's or other experiences. a court 2007. Near the end Nelson's he intended and, victim to take Nelson notified the district transcript In evidence instead, opinion jury the eriminal trial his offer of previously Nelson offered no testi judicial trial commenced on to strike in order to as Boisvert had been simply asked the of Sergeant Bois- support Sergeant Bois- clouded identified inci proof, notice of the the first Nelson's question assault Christopher day in y.2 hearing, During on Nelson's motion. Care opted provide copy transcript of the to the district court. The district court denied Nelson's DISCUSSION Sergeant Boisvert cоn- request of Review Standard incidents, concluding the prior cerning the This Court reviews a trial it not relevant and that information was jury. Spec1 n cally, evidentiary rulings court's un tend to confuse der the abuse of discretion standard. Person court stated: the district State, 149, ¶11, v. 2004 WY 100 P.3d jury in this case is The task before State, (Wyo.2004); Trusky v. 7 P.3d under the faсts of this to ascertain (Wyo.2000); Dodge 562 P.2d presented in presented and will be case as review, primary On our evidence, attempted to the defendant is the reasonableness consideration *4 Boisvert, injury bodily inflict on Officer State, trial court's decision. v. 2008 Proffit weapon. in deadly And using the car as ¶12 974, (Wyo.2008). P.3d 977 WY casе, allegations going are to those that establishing The burden of an of abuse dis own. The State has and fall on their stand party challenging the cretion rests with the they prove. The need to certain elements trial court's determination. Id. proof, and Offi- incident itself offers some just part of opinion is one cеr Boisvert's I-Discovery Issue proof that in the basket of the is State's 16(a)(1)(C) general [118] W.R.Cr.P. respect the elements of proof with to ly requires production by the of certain State intent. There or not there was an
whether evidence, possession identified of the say, inflict attempt, I should was State, preparation material to the of the def bodily injury on Boisvert. Officer materiality, ense.4 On the issue of we have opinion, in that is the He testified said testimony, I the is way at least received sought discovery in evidence is material trying run him that the defendant was only probability if there ais reasonable That hit him with the vehicle. is his or that the outcome of the case would have only in That is not the evidence opinion. requirement been different. The of mate- evidence, my in of and the State's basket riality by inquiry is tested the court's as to cases, J[eJareening the side off into view[ sought which whether the evidence is is away jury the from the facts оf directs] likely to affect the outcome of the trial. them, case, and would tend to confuse State, (Wyo.1997), P.2d 89 Vena v. 941 therefore, jury. And the confuse the abrogated grounds by Vaughn v. on permit the going Court is to decline to State, (Wyo.1998). 962P.2d inquire of Officer Boisvert defendant complains his entire de- in respect with to the fаcts involved the [Ser- fense rested on the "assertion that Carey case that been refer- has] Chris jaded, be- geant] Boisvert was biased case, enced, Mike that has and the Owens experienced past cause he had similar been referenced. events." Nelson also asserts "[tlestimo- - end, other, оccurrences, jury ny concerning In the the found similar in, battery. [Sergeant] guilty aggravated of assault and which Boisvert was involved credibility." only way to test his He The district court sentenced Nelson on both was the requested production contends that prison counts to concurrent terms of three to only material yеars.3 appeal documents was therefore not seven This followed. objects, buildings sentencing photographs, tangible or delayed 3. The district court Nelson on thereof, pending property places, copies portions the destruction conviction the are or which or jury aggravated the on the as- outcome of trial possession, custody or control of the within the battery charge. sault and state, prepara- the and which are material defense or are intended tion of the defendant's 16(a)(1)(C) 4. Rule states: by in chief at the for use the state as evidence defendant, written demand Upon trial, belong to the obtained from or or were permit inspect shall the defendant state defendant. documents, books, copy photograph papers, or right present Dysthe a defense. defense. The district to his essential but 20, ¶5, 63 P.3d WY primarily Nelson's motion be court denied jury sought regard information for thе in to the cause it determined battery charge assault and to his defense.5 not be material appellant attempted to inflict agree with the district court [115] We injury bodily upon Sergeant Boisvert. The documents were not mate- requested that the proved State this element of the crime facts of this cаse. We fail light rial through opinion testimony relative to Ser- any information to see how appellant Boisvert. The should have been affairs past work-related geant Boisvert's question Sergeant allowed to Boisvert about adversely credibility affected his have could incidents, prior similar to test whether question. concerning isolated events perception appellant's may intent in similar cireum- being involved Simply been have colored those incidents. The any give presumption rise to stances does evidence was relevant admissible. predisposition to such events. negative aof W.R.E. 402. The district court's conclu us, con- before we cannot Given the record testimony sion would "direct court abused its discre- clude that the district jury away from the facts of this denying motion. tion in Nelson's *5 them, would tend to confuse confuse the Issue district court II-Recall erred in not complains allowing him jury could be trusted to handle this small jury" simply slice of the truth. is not reasonable. Surely during Sergeant Boisvert his case-in- call complaint easily disposed of. This is
chief.
calling Sergeant
given
for
Bois-
reason
specific past
him about
vert was to
court
experiences. The district
denied
grounds
proposed
request on the
likely
not relеvant and would
testimony was
jury. Again
agree
we
with the
confuse the
above, any
court. As stated
involve
district
by Sergeant
prior,
similar
ment
credibility
events was irrelevant
the district court contested Wyoming, Respondent. The STATE of evidentiary rulings. Affirmed.
No. S-08-0235. GOLDEN, J., opinion delivers the Supreme Wyoming. Court of
Court; VOIGT, C.J., dissenting files a opinion. March VOIGT, Justice, dissenting. Chief OrpEr Stay Continumc or ExECUTION respectfully I dissent. I find PrEnomeaDisrostrion or Stare Post- of discretion the district court's abuse Conviction Reuirr PROCEEDING appellant call refusal to allow the in his case-in-chief. This matter Boisvert as а witness came before the Court Every upon Report," criminal defendant has a constitutional "Petitioner's Status which was parties disputed police disposition we 5. The Because of our of this need "possession, custody files would be considered in foray not conduct a into this issue. 16(a)(1)(C). or control" of State. W.R.Cr.P.