Randall D. Schreibvogel, Appellant (defendant) v. the State of Wyoming, Appellee (plaintiff) (Wyoming 2010)

Summary

A jury convicted Randall Schreibvogel of two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of robbery, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the State had standing to move to quash the defendant's subpoena duces tecum for the victim's financial records and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing it; that victim impact testimony, post-incident hearsay, and the 'coked up' and child-support-arrearage evidence were admitted without plain error or material prejudice; that the prosecutor's questions about whether other witnesses were lying or mistaken were conceded misconduct but not unfairly prejudicial, and the closing argument did not shift the burden of proof; and that trial counsel was neither deficient nor prejudicial. Voigt, Chief Justice, specially concurred in the result while criticizing the prosecutor's repeated improper questions, asserting the 'coked up' testimony was intentionally introduced uncharged 404(b) misconduct evidence, and warning that requiring appellants to prove prejudice leaves the State nearly unfettered.

Holding

Whether the State had standing to move to quash the defendant's subpoena duces tecum for the victim's personal financial records, and whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion under W.R.Cr.P. 17(d).. The State had standing to move to quash the subpoena because a party may move to quash a subpoena addressed to another when the subpoena infringes the movant's legitimate interests, and the prosecution's standing rested on its interest in preventing undue lengthening of the trial and undue harassment of its witness; the district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena because compliance would be unreasonable and oppressive.

Whether the district court committed plain error in admitting victim impact testimony from the victim and her husband.. No plain error: because the defense theory was consent, which put the victim's credibility at issue, testimony about changes in her work habits, sleeping patterns, and other behaviors bolstered her credibility, and using claimed victim impact testimony for that purpose did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law.

Whether the cumulative effect of testimony from the investigating officer, an x-ray technician, and an emergency room nurse recounting the victim's statements was inadmissible hearsay that denied the defendant a fair trial.. No plain error: the defendant failed to establish a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law because the challenged testimony was potentially admissible under several evidentiary rules, and he failed to establish material prejudice.

Whether the district court erred in admitting the pod-mate's testimony that the defendant was 'coked up' and the cross-examination about his child-support arrearages as 404(b) evidence introduced without notice.. No error: the State was not required to give notice of the drug-use reference because it did not intend to introduce that evidence, and any error in its admission was not materially prejudicial because it was cumulative of the defendant's own testimony about his cocaine conviction; the child-support evidence was not shown to be 404(b) character evidence and, if it were, was admissible to prove motive for the robbery.

Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by cross-examining the defendant about whether other witnesses were lying or mistaken, and by closing-argument remarks comparing the witnesses each side presented and emphasizing the lack of corroboration of the defendant's account.. The cross-examination questions were error and misconduct violating a clear and unequivocal rule of law, as the State conceded, but they did not result in unfair prejudice; the closing-argument remarks did not shift the burden of proof and were not plain error.

Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to inadmissible evidence and by failing to adequately advance the defense theory, including in cross-examination of the victim.. No ineffective assistance: the defendant failed to show that counsel's performance was deficient or that his defense was prejudiced.

Randall D. Schreibvogel, Appellant (defendant) v. the State of Wyoming, Appellee (plaintiff)

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by