Janpol v. State

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Voigt
• Citation: Janpol v. State, 2008 WY 21, 178 P.3d 396 (Wyo. 2008)
• Decision Date: 28 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. S-07-0036.,S-07-0036.
• Parties: Justin Drew JANPOL, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

178 P.3d 396

2008 WY 21

Justin Drew JANPOL, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. S-07-0036.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

February 28, 2008.

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; and David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Pojman.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

VOIGT, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(a) (LexisNexis 2007), and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. His appeal raises issues about the jury instructions, about the presentence investigation report, and about the district court's denial of a motion for mistrial. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Whether the jury was properly instructed as to the procedure for considering the charged offense and lesser-included offenses?

2. Whether the presentence investigation report improperly contained confidential information?

3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a mistrial?

FACTS

[¶ 3] Most of the underlying events of this case are not relevant to the issues presented. Suffice it to say that late in the evening on November 2, 2005, in Casper, Wyoming, the appellant stabbed to death one David Maggiacomo. The homicide occurred after a long day of drinking and arguing amongst the appellant, the victim, and several other sometime residents of the Central Wyoming Rescue Mission. The appellant was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder, with the State seeking a maximum penalty of incarceration for life without the possibility of parole, rather than the death penalty. The district court imposed the requested sentence.

DISCUSSION

Whether the jury was properly instructed as to the procedure for considering the charged offense and lesser-included offenses?

[¶ 4] The jury was instructed as follows in regard to lesser-included offenses:

INSTRUCTION NO. 12

YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that if you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, he may, however, be found guilty of any lesser offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense charged, if the evidence is sufficient to establish his guilt of such lesser offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offense of Murder in the First Degree, with which the defendant is charged, also includes the lesser offenses of Murder in the Second Degree, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, and Criminally Negligent Homicide.

[¶ 5] That instruction, which is found in Wyoming's Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, was offered both by the appellant and by the State, although the State listed only second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense. The district court gave the appellant's proposed version. Likewise, because it listed all of the potential lesser-included offenses, the district court also gave to the jury the verdict form proposed by the appellant, with some minor changes, which verdict form read as follows:

VERDICT

We the jury, duly empaneled and sworn to try the above-entitled cause, do find as follows:

1. As to the charge of Murder in the First Degree, as charged in the Information in this case, we find the Defendant, Justin Drew Janpol:

___ Not Guilty

___ Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency

___ Guilty

If you find the Defendant Not Guilty in # 1, then proceed to # 2. If you find the Defendant Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency or Guilty in #1, do not answer # 2, # 3, # 4, or # 5.

2. As to the lesser included charge of Murder in the Second Degree, we find the Defendant, Justin Drew Janpol:

___ Not Guilty

___ Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency

___ Guilty

If you find the Defendant Not Guilty in # 2, then proceed to # 3. If you find the Defendant Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency or Guilty in # 2, do not answer # 3, # 4, or # 5.

3. As to the lesser included charge of Voluntary Manslaughter, we find the Defendant, Justin Drew Janpol:

___ Not Guilty

___ Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency

___ Guilty

If you find the Defendant Not Guilty in # 3, then proceed to # 4. If you find the Defendant Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency or Guilty in # 3, do not answer # 4, or # 5.

4. As to the lesser included charge of Involuntary Manslaughter, we find the Defendant, Justin Drew Janpol:

___ Not Guilty

___ Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency

___ Guilty

If you find the Defendant Not Guilty in # 4, then proceed to # 5. If you find the Defendant Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency or Guilty in # 4, do not answer #5.

5. As to the lesser included charge of Criminally Negligent Homicide, we find the Defendant, Justin Drew Janpol:

___ Not Guilty

___ Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness or Deficiency

___ Guilty

When you have finalized your verdict(s), date and sign the verdict form and advise the Bailiff that you have reached a verdict.

   DATED this ____ day of August, 2006
                    ____________________
                    Presiding Juror
                

[¶ 6] The appellant does not now specifically appeal from the form of the verdict. Rather, this appellate issue is based upon the following colloquy that occurred during the State's rebuttal closing argument:

[PROSECUTOR]:....

They have also said put these side by side, do this, do that. One thing you'll notice from the instructions the judge gave you, you can only proceed to the lesser included offenses if you first find the defendant not guilty of the greater offenses. So you can't consider second until you determine whether he's guilty or not guilty of first and so on down the line. They want to say —

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would object to that as a mischaracterization. It says after — you can consider everything, and then you go back to the verdicts. I don't think — again, there is no threshold requirement. It simply states that if you find the defendant not guilty of first-degree murder. I think that's a mischaracterization. They can certainly look at the other charges before making a decision.

[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, that's Wyoming law, and that's what a step verdict is.

THE COURT: I think the instructions speak for themselves. And to the extent that there's an objection, I guess my thought is that that's a matter of argument. But the instructions and the verdict form do address the order in which the jury is to consider the charges in this case, and you will be required to follow those steps or those forms that are expressed in the verdict. So you may proceed.

[¶ 7] The appellant presents this issue as an instructional issue. The parties agree that we review such issues under the following standard:

Jury instructions shall not be ruled defective absent a showing that the instructions confused or misled the jury as to the proper principles of law and prejudiced the defendant. Lane v. State, 12 P.3d 1057, 1061 (Wyo.2000). Prejudicial error must be demonstrated, and prejudice will not be demonstrated unless the instruction confused or misled the jury with respect to the proper principles of law. Wilson v. State, 14 P.3d 912, 916 (Wyo.2000).

Black v. State, 2002 WY 72, ¶ 6, 46 P.3d 298, 300 (Wyo.2002). We have further defined our standard of review of jury instruction issues as follows:

We have a well-established standard for review of jury instruction issues:

Jury instructions should inform the jurors concerning the applicable law so that they can apply that law to their findings with respect to the material facts, instructions should be written with the particular facts and legal theories of each case in mind and often differ from case to case since any one of several instructional options may be legally correct, a failure to give an instruction on an essential element of a criminal offense is fundamental error, as is a confusing or misleading instruction, and the test of whether a jury has been properly instructed on the necessary elements of a crime is whether the instructions leave no doubt as to the circumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed.

Mueller v. State, 2001 WY 134, ¶ 9, 36 P.3d 1151, 1155 (Wyo.2001) (citing Schmidt v. State, 2001 WY 73, ¶ 23, 29 P.3d 76, 83 (Wyo.2001) and Metzger v. State, 4 P.3d 901, 908 (Wyo.2000)). We analyze jury instructions as a whole and do not single out individual instructions or parts thereof. Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶ 8, 34 P.3d 271, 274 (Wyo. 2001). We give trial courts great latitude in instructing juries and "`will not find reversible error in the jury instructions as long as the instructions correctly state the law and the entire set of instructions sufficiently covers the issues which were presented at trial.'" Id. (quoting Harris v. State, 933 P.2d 1114, 1126 (Wyo.1997)).

Brown v. State, 2002 WY 61, ¶ 9, 44 P.3d 97, 100 (Wyo.2002).

[¶ 8] The first thing that has to be noted is that the appellant is not contesting any of the written instructions that were given, or the verdict form itself. Instead, he contends that the above-quoted colloquy constituted an "oral modification or explanation of a jury instruction," in violation of W.R.Cr.P. 30 which requires that jury instructions be in writing. Further, the appellant contends that the State's argument and the district court's response "[gave] precedence to the consideration of first degree murder over manslaughter or second degree murder." Finally, citing Dean v. State, 2003 WY 128, 77 P.3d 692 (Wyo.2003); Yung v. State, 906 P.2d 1028 (Wyo.1995); and Black v....