Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2009 WY 92

Summary of Decision issued July 15, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Thomas v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 92

Docket Number: S-09-0018

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant Thomas: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Kirk Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: A jury found Thomas guilty of attempted second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault and battery, and reckless endangerment. Thomas rammed his truck into his former girlfriend and the vehicle beside which she was standing. He then jumped out of his truck and pointed a handgun at her and a person standing nearby.
Irrelevant victim impact testimony: At trial, without objection, the victim and her physician, testified at length and in detail about the victim?s injuries, the surgeries and the necessity of future medical treatment. The nature and extent of a victim?s injuries, no less than the manner in which they were inflicted, may be probative of appellant?s intent to kill. Where a victim on the surface appears to have healed from physical injuries, evidence of those injuries may be the only way to adequately give the jury a sense of the crime that took place. Victim impact evidence is not admissible in every case. But where there has been no trial objection and where the evidence has sufficient probative value to outweigh the danger of an unfairly prejudicial effect, the Court cannot say that it was plain error for it to have been admitted.
Failure to consider the PSI: Thomas contended that the district court did not consider the PSI as required by the W.R.Cr.P. 32(a). The Court stated the Rule only requires the district court to consider the PSI. It does not require it to base the sentence upon the PSI. A review of the sentencing hearing transcript clearly revealed that the district court considered the PSI.

Conclusion: The victim impact evidence presented during the guilt phase of the trial in the case was relevant because it tended to prove an element of one of the charged crimes. The record reflects that the district court considered the PSI as required.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/m6ryqn .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on July 15, 2009 (boomark / email).