Eaton v. State
Decision Date | 18 August 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 06-255.,No. 04-180.,04-180.,06-255. |
Citation | 192 P.3d 36,2008 WY 97 |
Parties | Dale Wayne EATON, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling; David L. Delicath; and Melissa M. Swearingen, Senior Assistant Attorneys General. No. 04-180 argued by D. Michael Pauling; No. 06-255 argued by David L. Delicath.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[¶ 1] Appellant, Dale Wayne Eaton (Eaton), seeks review of his conviction for the crime of first-degree murder, as well as for other crimes,1 and the sentence of death which was imposed on June 3, 2004. We will affirm the Judgment as to all convictions. We will affirm both the convictions and the death sentence.
[¶ 2] Eaton raises these issues:
I. The trial court committed reversible error and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by applying post-1989 amendments to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-102 (1982) to Eaton's case.
II. Eaton received ineffective assistance of counsel.
A. Eaton's counsel were ineffective for stipulating to the use of the entire 2001 amended version of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-102 (1982), excluding "future dangerousness." Amended portions were more disadvantageous to Eaton and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States and Wyoming constitutions.
B. Defense counsel were ineffective by failing to comply in substantive ways with the ABA Guidelines which establish specific standards for both experience and performance in trying death penalty cases.
C. Failure to know the law.
D. Concession of Eaton's guilt without valid consent from him.
E. Eaton was unable to assist in his defense and thus not competent to be tried. Counsel's failure to address this fundamental problem and election to allow the case to proceed under these circumstances rendered trial patently unfair.
F. Trial counsel were ineffective for waiving objection to venue.
G. The oversights, errors and decisions to forego (i.e., the sorts of things set out above) amounted to an abandonment of Eaton's defense by his own counsel.
H. Defense counsel were ineffective in failing to adequately investigate potential mitigation evidence, failing to offer appropriate mitigation evidence, and failing to provide necessary information to mitigation experts.
I. Counsel's failure to object to the given instructions which were substantively different than those proposed by the defense constituted substandard performance and substantially prejudiced Eaton.
J. Counsel did not assure that Eaton's jury was given a constitutionally adequate sentencing form.
III. The jury was not properly instructed on the law as intended by Wyoming's death penalty statute.
IV. An unconstitutional and fatally defective voir dire deprived Eaton of a fair and impartial jury to determine his guilt or innocence and to decide on life or death.
V. The trial court was biased at trial and in limiting the remand, showing such hostility to his claims that Eaton was deprived of due process and prejudiced as a result.
VI. Prosecutorial misconduct occurred, violating Eaton's due process rights and warranting reversal.
VII. Eaton was unable to assist in his own defense and thus was not competent to be tried.
VIII. The trial court erred in denying defense counsel's motion for mistrial, where a juror conducted his own investigation and discussed his investigation during deliberations.
IX. The trial court erred in the admission and presentation of evidence.
X. The trial court erred in permitting the testimony of Dr. Ash without Eaton's express waiver of privilege, and without insuring the protection of Eaton's Fifth Amendment right against...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eaton v. Wilson
...[Doc. 83-12, p. 47]. The examination also revealed semen in her vagina. Samples of the semen were taken and preserved. Eaton v. State, 192 P.3d 36, 51 (Wyo. 2008). [Doc. 83-10, pp. 62, 63, 64]. DNA from the semen samples was matched, in 2001, to Petitioner, whohad formerly resided in Moneta......
-
Sam v. State
...reversal where the accumulated effect constitutes prejudice and the conduct of the trial is other than fair and impartial. Id . ; Eaton v. State , 2008 WY 97, ¶ 105, 192 P.3d 36, 79 (Wyo. 2008). In this instance, any errors found in the jury instructions were not prejudicial and neither was......
- Neely v. Wyo. Comm'n on Judicial Conduct & Ethics (In re Neely)
-
Mersereau v. State
...do not guarantee that a criminal defendant receive a perfect trial, but they do guarantee that he receive a fair trial. See Eaton v. State, 2008 WY 97, ¶ 85, 192 P.3d 36, 75 (Wyo.2008); Haworth v. State, 840 P.2d 912, 920 (Wyo.1992); Janski v. State, 538 P.2d 271, 277 (Wyo.1975). When apply......