Cazier v. State
| Decision Date | 15 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-114.,05-114. |
| Citation | 148 P.3d 23,2006 WY 153 |
| Parties | Georgina Danyel CAZIER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Ken Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.
Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL*, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] Georgina Danyel Cazier appeals her conviction for aggravated assault and battery. She asserts that the district court should have granted her motion for a mistrial based upon her claim that a prosecution witness improperly commented on her right to remain silent. Additionally, she claims error in the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts, character evidence, and vouching for the victim's credibility. Ms. Cazier also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction and contends that cumulative error warrants reversal. We affirm.
[¶ 2] We rephrase the issues presented by Ms. Cazier as follows:
I. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for mistrial after the investigating officer testified that Ms. Cazier had refused to speak to him?
II. Did the district court erroneously permit evidence or argument concerning prior bad acts of Ms. Cazier?
III. Was improper character evidence admitted, resulting in plain error?
IV. Did improper vouching for the victim occur, resulting in plain error?
V. Does sufficient evidence support Ms. Cazier's conviction?
VI. Does cumulative error warrant reversal?
[¶ 3] On the morning of March 16, 2004, Ms. Cazier and her husband, Chad, were together at their residence in Lincoln County, Wyoming. After their children left for school, the couple began to argue. Ms. Cazier became angry. She punched Mr. Cazier in the face and whipped him repeatedly with television cables.1
[¶ 4] Later that day, Kevin Jackson, Chief of the Afton Police Department, received an anonymous phone tip that Mr. Cazier should be contacted. The informant believed that Mr. Cazier "was being beaten by his wife and . . . was in very bad physical condition." The following day, March 17, 2004, Chief Jackson met with Mr. Cazier and accompanied him to the Lincoln County Sheriff's office to meet with Officer Timothy Malik.2 Officer Malik immediately observed that Mr. Cazier was injured, noting a black eye and cuts on his face and head. Mr. Cazier lifted his shirt, revealing numerous lacerations and bruises on his torso. Mr. Cazier described the events of the previous day and explained that Ms. Cazier had inflicted his injuries. Mr. Cazier also showed Officer Malik a cut on his forearm and explained that his wife came at him with a knife. He believed he had been cut in the course of attempting to defend himself. Additionally, Mr. Cazier related a prior incident of whipping on March 11, 2004.
[¶ 5] Officer Malik accompanied Mr. Cazier to the emergency room at Star Valley Medical Center. During the physical examination, Officer Malik took photos of Mr. Cazier to document his injuries. Mr. Cazier was admitted and remained in the hospital for several days.
[¶ 6] On March 18, 2004, Officer Malik executed a search warrant at the Cazier residence and retrieved the television cables and a note from Ms. Cazier apologizing to her husband for her behavior. Ms. Cazier was charged with aggravated assault and battery, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2003) for beating her husband with the television cables on March 16, 2004.3 Ms. Cazier was also charged with two other felony counts — aggravated assault and battery, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(i), for the alleged beating on March 11, 2004, and assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2003), for allegedly cutting Mr. Cazier with a knife.
[¶ 7] A jury trial was held. Ms. Cazier denied any fight with her husband on March 11, 2004, and introduced evidence that he was at work at the time. Ms. Cazier did not dispute that she and her husband fought on March 16, 2004, that she had hit him with the cables, or that she had armed herself with a knife. However, she claimed that Mr. Cazier had been the aggressor and described her actions as self defense. She denied that Mr. Cazier had been cut by the knife during their fight. She also claimed that Mr. Cazier caused many of his own injuries by hitting himself. The jury found Ms. Cazier guilty of one count of aggravated assault and battery for beating Mr. Cazier with the cables on March 16, 2004. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on the other two counts.
[¶ 8] Ms. Cazier was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eighteen months to five years, which was suspended pending completion of a split sentence — one year of incarceration in the Lincoln County Jail and three years of supervised probation. The sentence was stayed pending this appeal. Further facts will be discussed as needed in our review of Ms. Cazier's claims on appeal.
[¶ 9] We review the denial of a mistrial motion under an abuse of discretion standard. Lucero v. State, 14 P.3d 920, 924 (Wyo.2000). Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Id.
[¶ 10] Evidentiary rulings are also committed to the sound discretion of the district court and are not subject to appellate second guessing absent an abuse of discretion. Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 103, ¶ 21, 98 P.3d 143, 149 (Wyo.2004). When no objection is made at trial to the evidence challenged on appeal, we apply our plain error standard of review. Plain error will not be found unless: (1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice. Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15, 127 P.3d 793, 797-798 (Wyo.2006).
[¶ 11] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, "[w]e assess whether all the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State." Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16, 86 P.3d 851, 857 (Wyo. 2004) (quoting Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 6, 66 P.3d 703, 707 (Wyo. 2003)).
Motion for mistrial (for improper comment on silence)
[¶ 12] Ms. Cazier claims that the district court should have granted her motion for a mistrial after the State's first witness, Officer Malik, testified "I tried to interview [Ms. Cazier] and she didn't want to talk to me." She contends this constituted an improper comment on her exercise of her constitutional right to remain silent.
[¶ 13] We have described the right to remain silent as "one of the most fundamental rights accorded a defendant in our criminal justice system." Williams v. State, 2004 WY 117, ¶ 18, 99 P.3d 432, 444 (Wyo.2004). The right to silence provided by Article 1, Section 11 of the Wyoming Constitution is self-executing, existing pre-arrest when an individual is questioned by the state's agents for purposes of a criminal investigation.4 Tortolito v. State, 901 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo.1995). "Accordingly, the prosecutorial use of the citizen's silence to infer the guilt of the citizen is constitutionally prohibited." Id.
In right-to-silence cases, we evaluate "`the entire context in which the statements were made' and we will `not take sentences and phrases out of context.'" Spinner v. State, 2003 WY 106, ¶ 19, 75 P.3d 1016, 1024 (Wyo.2003) (quoting Robinson v. State, 11 P.3d 361, 373 (Wyo. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 980, 121 S.Ct. 1620, 149 L.Ed.2d 483 (2001)). We also consider "`whether the prosecutor asked improper questions, whether he emphasized or followed up on the silence issue and whether he attempted to exploit the issue in any way.'" Spinner, 2003 WY 106, ¶ 19, 75 P.3d at 1024 (quoting Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45, ¶ 39, 43 P.3d 80, 96 (Wyo.2002)).
Abeyta v. State, 2003 WY 136, ¶ 12, 78 P.3d 664, 667-668 (Wyo.2003).
[¶ 14] The statement at issue arose during cross examination when defense counsel inquired as to the nature and extent of the investigation. Officer Malik testified as follows:
[Defense Counsel] Now, and you never interviewed [the children] to see —
[Malik] I never interviewed them.
Q. — to see what they had to say, if this incident even took place on the 11th? Is that what you mean by an objective interview? You just took [Mr. Cazier's] word for it, didn't you?
A. Say that again?
Q. You just took [Mr. Cazier's] word for it that it had happened as he said?
A. Well, I tried to interview Danyel and she didn't want to talk to me.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶ 15] Defense counsel objected. The district court sustained the objection and then held discussions with counsel in chambers. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, which the district court took under advisement. The district court offered to provide a curative instruction to the jury when the trial resumed, but defense counsel preferred not to draw undue attention to the testimony at that time. After dismissing the jury at the end of the first day of trial, the district court announced its ruling on the motion for a mistrial. The district court provisionally denied the motion, indicating that if the State tried to refer to the statement or include it in argument, that it would reexamine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kovach v. State
...a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Jealous v. State, 2011 WY 171, ¶ 11, 267 P.3d 1101, 1104 (Wyo.2011) (citing Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10, 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo.2006)). To establish material prejudice, an appellant “must show a reasonable possibility exists that he......
-
Griggs v. State
...affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice. Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15, 127 P.3d 793, 797–798 (Wyo.2006).Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10, 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo.2006). See also Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 102, ¶ 19, 191 P.3d 963, 970 (Wyo.2008).A. Foster Mother [¶ 82......
-
Mitchell v. State
...because unnoticed testimony was brief and of the same nature as other witness testimony the court analyzed in a Gleason hearing); Cazier v. State , 2006 WY 153, ¶¶ 22-33, 148 P.3d 23, 31-34 (Wyo. 2006) (unnoticed testimony did not implicate Rule 404(b) because it was used to impeach a witne......
-
Thompson v. State
...clearly reflected in the record, resulting in the abridgment of a substantial right of the party to his material prejudice.' " Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 40, 148 P.3d 23, 35 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Belden, ¶ 38, 73 P.3d at 1087 ). Although the two arguments have different standards of rev......