Madrid v. State
| Decision Date | 29 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 4886,4886 |
| Parties | Ernie Michael MADRID and John A. Sandoval, Appellants (Defendants below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Gerald M. Gallivan and Mark J. Warns, Student Intern, Wyoming Defender Aid Program, Laramie, for appellants.
John J. Rooney, Acting Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, and Thomas C. Bancroft, Student Intern, Wyoming Prosecution Aid Program, Laramie, for appellee.
Before RAPER, C. J., and McCLINTOCK, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ., and GUTHRIE, J., Retired. *
In the early morning hours of May 25, 1977 the F. E. Curtis Jewelry Co. in Kemmerer was burglarized, and a number of wristwatches taken. The defendants, Michael Madrid and John A. Sandoval, were implicated in the crime, arrested and charged with burglary and grand larceny. After trial to a jury they were convicted of the offenses charged and bring this consolidated appeal claiming error. The only issue presented is whether statements made by a witness for the prosecution as to alleged prior misconduct of the appellants and cross-examination of Madrid and Sandoval about this incident constitute plain error requiring reversal of the convictions. The record shows no objection made to the alleged improprieties and counsel for the appellants concede this point. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court.
During trial the prosecution called witness Smith in its case in chief and during the examination elicited testimony to the effect that on May 19 Madrid and Sandoval had offered to sell her a wristwatch that had been stolen. Smith also was apparently used as an identification witness.
On cross-examination of both Madrid and Sandoval the prosecution inquired into the incident but appears to have obtained little damaging information. It should be noted, however, that the defense first inquired into the incident on direct examination of both defendants. No objection of record was made to any of the questions or answers and appellants concede the general rule is that failure to object is a waiver of the alleged error but they assert plain error. For this court to invoke the plain-error rule, as embodied in Rule 49(b), W.R.Cr.P., three specific criteria must be fulfilled: first, the record must be clear as to the incident that occurred at trial that is alleged as error; second, the proponent of the rule must demonstrate a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and third, the proponent must prove that a substantial right has been violated and that the defendant has been materially prejudiced by that violation. Jones v. State, Wyo., 580 P.2d 1150 (1978); Hampton v. State, Wyo., 558 P.2d 504 (1977); Hays v. State, Wyo., 522 P.2d 1004 (1974). These requirements must be fulfilled even if constitutional rights are involved.
Even if we concede that appellants have satisfied the first two factors of the test, we cannot agree that they have met this burden on the last. They have demonstrated no material prejudice because of the alleged violations. The defendants claim the errors precluded a fair trial guaranteed to them by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 9 of the Wyoming Constitution, but prove no prejudice. Appellants concede they have found no cases where this manner of alleged misconduct was deemed plain error, nor have we. They admit that the misconduct raised only inferences and implications of wrongdoing but can prove no more. Appellants cite Jones v. State, supra, as a case that was almost reversed for such misconduct and claim the error here more severe. Jones involved a comment made by the prosecution at closing argument clearly misstating a point of law. We believe this case presents no stronger a case for reversal than Jones.
In Jones, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v. State
...they should disregard the prosecutor's question. We must assume that the jury followed the court's curative instruction. Madrid v. State, Wyo., 592 P.2d 709 (1979); Simms v. State, Wyo., 492 P.2d 516, cert. denied 409 U.S. 886, 93 S.Ct. 104, 34 L.Ed.2d 142 (1972). Appellant has failed to de......
-
Hopkinson v. State
...error which was not brought to the attention of the trial court was waived unless plain error can be shown. As stated in Madrid v. State, Wyo.1979, 592 P.2d 709, 710: " * * * For this court to invoke the plain-error rule, as embodied in Rule 49(b), W.R.Cr.P., three specific criteria must be......
-
Westmark v. State
...Wyo., 635 P.2d 1165 (1981); Settle v. State, Wyo., 619 P.2d 387 (1980); Ketcham v. State, Wyo., 618 P.2d 1356 (1980); Madrid v. State, Wyo., 592 P.2d 709 (1979). Almost without further comment, it is apparent from the foregoing that elements (1), (2) and (3) are present. The statement and w......
-
Weddle v. State
...U.S. 825, 82 S.Ct. 840, 7 L.Ed.2d 789 (1962). The error would be harmless if no prejudice resulted to appellant from it. Madrid v. State, Wyo., 592 P.2d 709 (1979); Jones v. State, Wyo., 580 P.2d 1150 (1978); Daellenbach v. State, Wyo., 562 P.2d 679 (1977); Rule 49, W.R.Cr.P. As previously ......