Harnetty v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-0150 |
| Citation | 511 P.3d 165 |
| Parties | Paul Michael HARNETTY, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Wyoming, Respondent. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Petitioner: Eric K. Klein, Johnson & Klein, PLLC, Boulder, Colorado; Devon W. Petersen, Fleener Petersen, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Klein.
Representing Respondent: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Samuel Williams, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Williams.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] Paul Michael Harnetty was an obstetrician/gynecologist in Casper, Wyoming. A jury convicted him of sexually assaulting two of his patients. We affirmed his conviction on appeal. Harnetty v. State , 2019 WY 21, ¶¶ 1–3, 435 P.3d 368, 369–70 (Wyo. 2019). On April 20, 2020, Mr. Harnetty filed a Petition for Postconviction Relief citing numerous alleged failures of trial and appellate counsel. He also claimed his investigator—in post-appellate interviews—discovered evidence of juror misconduct. He submitted the investigator's affidavit attesting to jurors’ interview statements. Prior to an evidentiary hearing on his claims, the State moved for summary judgment which the district court granted on the issue of juror misconduct. Mr. Harnetty claims the district court erred in granting the State summary judgment on Mr. Harnetty's claim of juror misconduct without proceeding to an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Harnetty petitioned for writ of review, which was granted. We affirm.
[¶2] The issues are:
[¶3] In January 2017, the State charged Mr. Harnetty, then a doctor in Casper,1 with twelve counts of inappropriate sexual conduct with six of his patients. Harnetty , ¶ 12, 435 P.3d at 371. Two counts were not bound over to the district court and two counts were dismissed by the State at trial. Id. ¶ 13, 435 P.3d at 371. The jury convicted Mr. Harnetty on two of the remaining charges—one count of second-degree sexual assault against patient K.L. and one count of second-degree sexual assault against patient K.C. The district court sentenced him to consecutive terms of ten to fifteen years imprisonment on each count. Id. ¶ 14, 435 P.3d at 371. Following his conviction, Mr. Harnetty filed three motions seeking an arrest of judgment or a new trial. All three motions were denied. He appealed and we affirmed his conviction in Harnetty , ¶¶ 1–3, 435 P.3d at 369–70.
[¶4] Mr. Harnetty then filed a Petition for Postconviction Relief raising numerous claims. The only issue on appeal is whether his claim of juror misconduct was sufficient to survive summary judgment and require an evidentiary hearing.
[¶5] Prior to trial and after a hearing, the district court excluded proposed evidence related to Mr. Harnetty from trial under W.R.E. 404(b). Also prior to trial, the Casper Star-Tribune and other out of state newspapers ran stories about the case. Several articles discussed Mr. Harnetty's settlement of a malpractice claim in Georgia for one million dollars. The Casper Star-Tribune published information that the district court had excluded from trial, including allegations that Mr. Harnetty had "raped a child," allegations he had sexually harassed a nurse in Georgia, and allegations that he had to change locations to complete his medical residencies because of his inappropriate behavior with female colleagues. The article further discussed a Wyoming legislative bill, circulating in reaction to Mr. Harnetty's arrest, aimed at protecting patients from "predatory doctors."
[¶6] A five-day jury trial began on January 22, 2018. Prior to voir dire, the district court noted the pre-trial publicity. It counseled the attorneys to use caution in exploring the effect of the publicity on potential jurors. It suggested that they initially approach the issue with "yes-or-no" questions and carefully follow up regarding the level of media exposure of any given juror and whether that juror could set aside the exposure and remain impartial. The possibility of a more detailed inquiry based on responses by specific jurors was left to the discretion of the attorneys. Seven of the jurors, ultimately empaneled, acknowledged some level of media exposure. Each stated he or she could "lay aside his impression or opinion" based on the publicity and would be able to "render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court" if called to serve. The jury convicted Mr. Harnetty on two of the eight charges.
[¶7] Following this Court's decision affirming Mr. Harnetty's conviction on direct appeal, he hired new counsel to conduct further investigation into facts relevant to his trial. New counsel contracted with Rachel Roberts, a licensed legal investigator. On December 15 and 16, 2019, Ms. Roberts (along with counsel) interviewed the jurors who sat in Mr. Harnetty's trial. Ms. Roberts submitted an affidavit detailing relevant portions of the interviews. The affidavit averred that Juror M stated that there was "no doubt in [his] mind" that Mr. Harnetty was guilty and that it was an "open and shut case." When asked what was different about the guilty and non-guilty verdicts at trial, Juror M brought up "all that stuff [Mr. Harnetty] did in Georgia" and stated Mr. Harnetty had "done it before to other women." When asked if the jurors discussed the Georgia allegations in the deliberation room, Juror M replied, "not everyone talked about that—just a few of us." Juror M also stated, "that other doctors have done the same thing and ‘have walked away from that and gotten nothing.’ " In addition, Ms. Roberts’ affidavit reported comments by two other jurors that generally indicated some jurors may have considered the media reports.
[¶8] On April 20, 2020, Mr. Harnetty filed his Petition for Postconviction Relief requesting an evidentiary hearing on all claims. Mr. Harnetty argued, inter alia , that juror misconduct violated his right to a fair and impartial jury. The evidentiary support for this claim included Ms. Roberts’ affidavit, and copies of the media coverage.
[¶9] The State filed its answer to Mr. Harnetty's petition on November 19, 2020. At that time, it requested permission to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. The district court granted the request, and the State filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 1, 2021.2 The State argued that Ms. Roberts’ affidavit supporting Mr. Harnetty's Petition for Postconviction Relief was based on inadmissible hearsay and that Mr. Harnetty had failed to provide admissible evidence to establish a prima facie showing of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. It contended it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mr. Harnetty responded to the State's motion but provided no additional evidentiary support for his juror misconduct claim beyond that attached to his petition.
[¶10] The district court granted the State's motion on this claim for two reasons. First, it determined that a juror misconduct claim was procedurally barred and the district court lacked jurisdiction stating, The court further concluded, "Because [the affidavit signed by the post-conviction investigator] is hearsay, it is not an ‘admissible document’ for summary judgment purposes and cannot be considered for postconviction relief."
[¶11] Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-14-103(a), the question of whether a petition for post-conviction relief is procedurally barred is a question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Schreibvogel v. State , 2012 WY 15, ¶ 8, 269 P.3d 1098, 1101 (Wyo. 2012) ; Goetzel v. State , 2019 WY 27, ¶ 9, 435 P.3d 865, 868 (Wyo. 2019) ().
[¶12] "We review a district court's ruling on summary judgment de novo and may affirm on any legal ground appearing in the record." Miller by & through Travis v. Sweetwater Cnty. Sch. Dist. #1 , 2021 WY 134, ¶ 13, 500 P.3d 242, 246 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting James v. James , 2021 WY 96, ¶ 23, 493 P.3d 1258, 1264 (Wyo. 2021) ).
We ... afford no deference to the district court's ruling. Thornock v. PacifiCorp , 2016 WY 93, ¶ 10, 379 P.3d 175, 179 (Wyo. 2016). This Court reviews the same materials and uses the same legal standard as the district court. Id. The record is assessed from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion ..., and we give a party opposing summary judgment the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. Id. A material fact is one that would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. Id.
Miller , ¶ 13, 500 P.3d at 246 (quoting James , ¶ 23, 493 P.3d at 1265 ). The parties’ burdens on summary judgment are delegated as follows:
The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case and showing there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once that burden is met, the opposing party is obligated to respond with materials beyond the pleadings to show a genuine issue of material fact. When the moving party does not have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial