Gunderson v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-191,95-191 |
| Citation | 925 P.2d 1300 |
| Parties | Rodney Alan GUNDERSON, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Sylvia L. Hackl, State Public Defender; Deborah Cornia, Assistant Public Defender; Gerald M. Gallivan, Director of the Defender Aid Program; and Harry Ivey and Tony Monterastelli, Student Interns for the Defender Aid Program, for Appellant.
William U. Hill, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Lou Piccioni, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.
Before TAYLOR C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN * and LEHMAN, JJ.
Appellant Rodney Gunderson appeals from the judgment and sentence which the trial court entered after a jury found that Appellant was guilty on three counts of aggravated assault and battery and that he was a habitual criminal.
We affirm.
Appellant presents these issues for our review:
I. Whether the district court improperly allowed prior bad acts evidence with neither the State giving notice nor the district court articulating its reasons for admitting the evidence as required by [the] Wyoming ... Supreme Court in Dean v. State.
II. Whether the trial court erred when it denied the defendant's motion to dismiss count II, aggravated assault and battery upon [the female victim], on the grounds that the State failed to establish a prima facie case on count II.
III. Whether under the Wyoming habitual criminal statute, the sentencing court can not use any felony convictions from foreign jurisdictions for sentence enhancement that do not meet the elements of a felony under Wyoming law.
On September 16, 1993, the victims, who were husband and wife, were driving their car on a rural road near Dubois. Appellant was driving a car in the opposite direction on the same road. Appellant drove his car directly toward the victims' car, causing the victims to drive to the side of the road where they stopped. Appellant pulled his car up next to the victims' car and pointed a gun at the victims through their open car window. He stated, "I'm going to blow your fucking head off." He cocked the gun and rested his finger on the trigger. The male victim, who was driving the car, leaned away from the gun and attempted to shield his wife. Even though she was not wearing any shoes, the female victim got out of the car and ran across a field toward her parents' home.
The male victim and Appellant exited their cars and argued. The quarrel apparently resulted from a dispute between Appellant and the victims over money. Appellant attempted to hit the male victim with a pop bottle. He then retrieved his gun from his car, and he again threatened the male victim with it. Appellant subsequently left the scene in his car.
Appellant was convicted after a bifurcated jury trial on three counts of aggravated assault and battery as described in WYO. STAT. § 6-2-502(a)(iii) (1988) and was found to be a habitual criminal under WYO. STAT. § 6-10-201(a) and (b)(ii) (1988). Appellant appealed to this Court.
A. Other Bad Acts
Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing other bad acts testimony to be admitted into evidence at his trial without following the procedure established in Dean v. State, 865 P.2d 601 (Wyo.1993). Appellant's argument focuses on the procedural question of whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on the admissibility of the evidence. Unlike the appellant in Vigil v. State, 926 P.2d 351 (Wyo.1996), 1 Appellant does not present any cogent argument to establish that the trial court committed plain error by admitting the other bad acts evidence in violation of W.R.E. 404(b). We will, therefore, restrict our discussion in this case to whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing.
Appellant maintains that, in three separate instances, the trial court allowed other bad acts testimony to be admitted into evidence. In the first instance, the male victim testified that he had seen Appellant "packing" a gun on a previous occasion:
Q. What have you seen [Appellant] get angry about?
A. Well, the incident with Ryman. You know, Tom accused him of stealing all his things, and he said he didn't. And next thing I know, he's--[Appellant's] got a gun in his drawer and packing one around, and telling me he's going to take care of Tom if Tom comes there, you know.
Appellant did not object or request that a limiting instruction be given. In the second instance, Appellant's ex-wife testified:
Q. Have you ever seen [Appellant] act in a violent manner toward anyone or yourself?
A. Yeah.
Q. Has he ever hit you?
A. He did once. He slapped me.
....
Q. --that was in a fight over money, isn't that true?
A. No.
Q. In that incident, you slapped him didn't you?
A. Yeah. I slapped him first.
Q. And then he hit you with his hand cupped on the ear, didn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, he ruptured your eardrum, didn't he?
A. Yeah.
Q. So his hand was cupped like this--
A. Yeah, I suppose it was.
Q. --when he hit you?
And when he hit your ear (demonstrating), it popped your eardrum, didn't it?
A. Yeah.
Appellant objected to the line of questioning, claiming that he had not been "charged with any offense here" and that the questions were improper. The trial court sustained the objection, but Appellant did not ask for a limiting instruction to be given.
In the third instance, which was also during Appellant's ex-wife's testimony, the following colloquy occurred:
Q. ... Now, when the defendant left, he stole the Pontiac Grand Prix.
A. Correct.
Q. The 1987 Pontiac Grand Prix that's involved in this case.
A. Right.
Q. So he took it without any permission.
A. Correct.
Q. And he stole it when he found out that the police were coming.
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time, you had gone to your sister's house with your children.
Appellant asked for a side-bar hearing and objected to "any more questions about this." The State tendered the witness without asking any further questions, and Appellant did not request that a limiting instruction be given.
W.R.E. 404(b) governs the admission of other bad acts testimony:
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts.--Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Vigil revised the test established in Dean for judging the admissibility of other bad acts testimony under W.R.E. 404(b). Vigil, 926 P.2d at 354-58. We have changed our test so that Wyoming uses the same criteria as that used by the federal courts to determine the admissibility of evidence under FED.R.EVID. 404(b). 926 P.2d at 354-56.
Following federal precedent, this Court stated in Vigil that a defendant must object in order to trigger the State's obligation to establish the admissibility of the evidence. 926 P.2d at 355. "Only when there is a timely objection invoking the rule will there be a requirement that the State justify the evidence as proper." Id. When no proper objection is made, the trial court is not required to conduct a hearing on the admissibility of the evidence. Id.
We admonish defense counsel that they must specifically object to any potential W.R.E. 404(b) evidence so as to signal the need for a hearing on the admissibility of the evidence. We will not permit defendants to sit back and allow other bad acts evidence to be admitted in their trials and then insist on appeal that they are automatically entitled to have their convictions reversed because the evidence was admitted.
Having stated that defendants are obligated to properly object to other bad acts evidence before a hearing is mandated, we must decide whether Appellant's objections in this case were sufficient. Appellant's objections failed to specifically refer to W.R.E. 404(b), they were made after the witnesses had already answered the questions about Appellant's other bad acts, and they were quite general in nature. We conclude, therefore, that Appellant's objections were neither timely nor appropriate. In the absence of a proper objection, the trial court was not required to conduct a hearing to determine whether other bad acts testimony should be admitted into evidence.
The State charged Appellant in count II of the information with committing an aggravated assault and battery upon the female victim. Appellant argues that the State did not present a prima facie case on that count and that the trial court, therefore, erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal.
We recently restated our standard for reviewing a denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal:
DeVries v. State, 909 P.2d 977, 978 (Wyo.1996) (quoting Apodaca v. State, 796 P.2d 806, 807 (Wyo.1990) (citation omitted)).
Section 6-2-502(a)(iii) provides in pertinent part:
(a) A person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery if he:
...
(iii) Threatens to use a drawn deadly weapon on another unless reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCreary v. Weast
...is not specified. The interpretation of the statute is a matter of law, and it is a function assigned to the courts. Gunderson v. State, 925 P.2d 1300, 1304 (Wyo.1996). The fundamental rule we invoke in the interpretation of a statute is that we must ascertain, if possible, what the legisla......
-
Hill v. State
...that the mere presence of a weapon in hand is insufficient to satisfy the “threatens to use” element. Id.; see also Gunderson v. State, 925 P.2d 1300, 1304 (Wyo.1996). In Johnston, we also approved of the trial court's instruction to the jury defining a “threat”:A threat is an expression of......
-
Thompson v. State
...a weapon is not sufficient to satisfy the "threatens to use" element of the crime. Hill, ¶ 15, 371 P.3d at 559 (citing Gunderson v. State, 925 P.2d 1300, 1304 (Wyo. 1996) ). A threat under § 6-2-502(a)(iii) is " 'an expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, or punishment. It may b......
-
Vigil v. State
...discloses, Vigil's attorney did not pose an appropriate objection. We are satisfied that, like the late objection in Gunderson v. State, 925 P.2d 1300 (Wyo.1996), this objection was neither timely nor pertinent to invoke a concern about a violation of WYO. R. EVID . 404(b). Because there wa......
-
Horizontal federalism in an age of criminal justice interconnectedness.
...conviction for negligent homicide). (94) State v. Williams, 651 P.2d 569, 580 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982); see also, e.g., Gunderson v. State, 925 P.2d 1300, 1305 (Wyo. 1996) ("The fact that the previous convictions were felonies in the rendering states but may not have been felonies in Wyoming i......