Title: ZACHARIAH NEWTON STRANGE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ZACHARIAH NEWTON STRANGE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2008 WY 132195 P.3d 1041Case Number: S-08-0026, S-08-0047Decided: 11/13/2008
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
ZACHARIAH 
NEWTON 
STRANGE,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofSweetwaterCounty

The 
Honorable Jere A. Ryckman, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Diane 
M. Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Kirk 
A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.  Argument by Mr. 
Morgan.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham M. Smith, 
Assistant Attorney General.  
Argument by Mr. Smith.

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

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 

[¶1]      
A 
jury found the appellant guilty of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, a 
felony.  He was sentenced to 
imprisonment for a period of five to ten years.  His motion for a new trial was later 
denied, and he appealed both the judgment and sentence and denial of the 
motion.  We consolidated those 
appeals.

 
 
[¶2]      We reverse and 
remand for a new trial because of prosecutorial 
misconduct.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶3]      The appellant 
raises two allegations against the State, one of prosecutorial misconduct and 
one of violating Brady v. Maryland, 
373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).  The second issue is moot, given our 
resolution of the first issue, which is stated as follows:  Was the appellant denied his right to a 
fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor repeatedly 
asserted during opening statement and closing argument the need to protect the 
community from methamphetamine?

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶4]      Our standard of 
review for claims of prosecutorial misconduct is as 
follows:

 
 

Claims 
of prosecutorial misconduct are settled by reference to the entire 
record and hinge on whether a defendant's case has been so prejudiced as to 
constitute denial of a fair trial.  
Similarly, the propriety of any comment within a closing argument is 
measured in the context of the entire 
argument.  A trial court's rulings 
as to the scope of permissible argument will not be disturbed absent a "clear or 
patent" abuse of discretion.  Even 
then, reversal is not warranted unless a reasonable probability exists, absent 
the error, that the appellant may have enjoyed a more favorable 
verdict.

 
 

Arevalo 
v. State, 
939 P.2d 228, 230 (Wyo. 1997) (citations omitted; emphasis in 
original).  An additional standard 
is applied, however, where there was no trial objection to the alleged 
misconduct:

 
 
[When 
the appellant did not object at trial], we review his claims by applying the 
plain error standard.  Lane v. State, 12 P.3d 1057, 1064 (Wyo. 
2000).  To demonstrate plain error, 
[the appellant] "must show that the record clearly shows an error that 
transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a 
substantial right."  Taylor v. State, 2001 WY 13, ¶ 16, 17 P.3d 715, [721] (Wyo. 2001).  Reversal of 
a conviction on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, which was not challenged 
in the trial court, is appropriate only when there is "a substantial risk of a 
miscarriage of justice."  Capshaw [v. State], 10 P.3d [560], 567 [(Wyo. 
2000)] (quoting Dice v. State, 825 P.2d 379, 384 (Wyo. 1992)).

 
 

Burton 
v. State, 
2002 WY 71, ¶ 13, 46 P.3d 309, 313-14 (Wyo. 2002).

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶5]      On December 5, 
2006, law enforcement officers orchestrated what is commonly called a "wired 
buy" in which a confidential informant, wearing a wireless transmitter/recorder, 
purchased methamphetamine from the appellant.  The illegal exchange$250.00 for 
one-eighth ounce of methamphetaminetook place at the appellant's apartment in 
Green River, Wyoming.  The appellant was not immediately 
arrested because the officers wanted to use the confidential informant for 
additional transactions.  He was, 
however, arrested and charged with this crime in May 2007.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶6]      This Court has 
frequently admonished prosecutors to seek convictions by presenting evidence of 
guilt, rather than by arousing the passions and prejudices of jurors against 
societal evils.

 
 
Arguments 
which are calculated to appeal to the jury's prejudice or passion are improper 
because they pose a risk that the accused may be convicted for reasons wholly 
irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.  
Accordingly, it is improper for a prosecutor to encourage the jury to 
convict a defendant in order to protect the community rather than upon the 
evidence presented at trial.

 
 

Burton, 
2002 WY 71, ¶ 15, 46 P.3d  at 314 (internal citations omitted).  In Gayler v. State, 957 P.2d 855, 861 
(Wyo. 1998), 
we re-stated this precept in a drug-delivery case:

 
 
            
The prosecutor's argument was obviously an appeal to the jury's sense of 
duty to help local law enforcement by convicting Gayler.  The argument was improper because it 
appealed to the jury's passion and prejudice against drug-related crimes.  Although a prosecutor is permitted a 
certain degree of latitude during closing arguments, he is not allowed to urge 
the jury to convict an accused on any basis other than that the evidence shows 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  
United 
States v. Barker, 553 F.2d 1013, 1025 (6th 
Cir. 1977).

 
 
[¶7]      We will review 
the entire trialvoir dire, opening 
statements, witness testimony, and closing argumentsto determine whether these 
clear lines were crossed.  In cases 
such as this, the difference between an affirmance and a reversal is often the 
difference between an isolated comment and a concerted effort by the prosecutor 
to create prejudice in the jurors' minds based upon something other than the 
evidence.  Statements made in 
opening and closing must be viewed in the context of the trial as a 
whole.

 
 
[¶8]      The record in 
this case reveals the following questions and statements, many of which, 
standing alone, would perhaps not require reversal, but all of which, taken 
together, constitute just the type of community protection argument that we have 
condemned in the past:

 
 
           
1.   During a pretrial 
conference, the prosecutor stated her intention of using during her opening 
statement a photograph of children walking near the appellant's apartment, to be 
accompanied by a statement about "what the crossing guard can't help them with 
or protect them from; a drug dealer selling a drug."  The district court disallowed the 
statement, so it did not, in the end, prejudice the appellant, but it does 
reveal the tenor of the State's proposed approach to the 
case.

 
 
           
2.   During voir dire, the prosecutor asked the 
prospective jurors whether they all agreed that the law prohibiting 
methamphetamine is a good law.

 
 
           
3.   During her opening 
statement, the prosecutor said the following:

 
 
            
Now, we talked on jury instructions  in jury selection this morning a 
little bit about methamphetamine.  
You all said that you're familiar with it, the devastating effects that 
it can have on people and the lives that it ruins.  But if you think about it, did you have 
in your mind that it was dealt in dark alleys?  Or the back of smoke-filled bars?  Or in front seats of cars parked in 
out-of-way places.  In this case, 
ladies and gentlemen, in broad daylight, residential street, right here in our 
community."

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
Last 
December 5th, agents of the Southwest Drug Enforcement Team set up a sting 
operation on Zach Strange, in order to  to have  to bust at least one drug 
dealer and shut down his base of operation.

 
 
            
You're going to hear from Arner Smart who is a Drug Enforcement Agent for 
Southwest Wyoming, a Division of the Criminal Investigation for the State of 
Wyoming.  He's going to tell you about his job 
assignments and what the Enforcement Team does.  He  
will tell you that one proven way to get rid of elicit [sic] controlled 
substances in our community is to use a confidential informant, or a CI, to do a 
drug transaction with a known drug dealer.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
            
And [the confidential informant] also told the officer, "And I think it's 
about darn time we try to get rid of the meth problem in SweetwaterCounty."

 
 
           
4.   During the direct 
examination of the State's primary law enforcement witness, the following 
exchanges occurred:

 
 
Q.   And why was [the Southwest Wyoming 
Enforcement Team] created or established, Agent Smart?

 
 
A.   To investigate crimes in narcotics 
nature.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
Q.   And how many agents are stationed 
in SweetwaterCounty?

 
 
A.   I believe there is [sic] five or 
six.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
Q.   What do you do in  in order to try 
to curb the drug problem in this and other counties?

 
 
A.   Interview people that are willing 
to give information, that are willing to go to work for us and assist us and  
in the cases that we deal with.

 
 
Q.   And what do you refer to those 
people as?

 
 
A.   Confidential 
informants.

 
 
Q.   Is that a common way of helping 
stem the drug tide in this county?

 
 
A.   Yes.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
Q.   What  I guess let me rephrase 
that.  Is there a drug problem in 
Sweetwater County, 
Wyoming?

 
 
A.   Yes, there 
is.

 
 
Q.   Okay.  And what's the primary drug that's the 
problem?

 
 
A.   
Methamphetamine.

 
 
Q.   Okay.  And what, exactly, in layman's terms, 
and I know you're not a scientist, but let's tell the jurors, if you would, what 
is methamphetamine and what effects does it have 

 
 
A.   Methamphetamine is a stimulant, an 
upper.  When people use it, they're 
very active or overactive.  It's 
hard for them to think rationally, if you will, because their mind is racing at 
a higher rate than most people who aren't using the drug.

 
 
Q.   Is it a common drug in an area such 
as ours where people do long hours of work?

 
 
A.   Yes, it's very common.  Oil field work, where people are 
constantly traveling from one area to another and have 20-hour days, it  it 
helps keep them awake so that they can accomplish putting in those hours and 
stuff of that nature.

 
 
Q.   What are the effects  the physical 
effects that it can have on people?

 
 
A.   Loss of weight, due a lot to the 
speeding up of the heart, and the faster that the heart's going, it tends to, I 
guess, burn more calories, if you will.  
They tend to  a lot of them tend not to shower or clean themselves or 
have good hygiene, so a lot of times they don't brush their teeth for weeks on 
end when they're using it because it's not in their mind to  to think about 
that stuff.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
Q.   In the past in this county, I 
believe, methamphetamine labs or cooking meth was a problem.  Is  will you explain what that is, 
first of all.

 
 
A.   A meth lab is generally if someone 
is making their own meth lab, it entails  it's extensive on how you have to 
process it.  It takes lots of 
ingredients, if you will, and a lot of that stuff is not as easy to get anymore 
as it was 10, 15 years ago.  The 
precursors you can't buy in store in large quantities, and we've seen a dramatic 
drop in meth labs in the area in the last probably five to ten 
years.

 
 
Q.   Okay.  And have you seen a significant drop, 
then, in methamphetamine in general?

 
 
A.   No, no.  Just because the labs have ceased to 
exist, people are still transporting it into the state from out of state or out 
of the country.

 
 
Q.   Where does  where are some of the 
places it does come from or what states or countries?

 
 
A.   Primarily, the stuff that we 
generally see within the people that we talk to, the sources of methamphetamine 
will be from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and a lot of those are getting it from 
either Mexico or California and shipping it across  

                               

. 
. . .

 
 
Q.   Okay.  And please explain to the jury those 
circumstances.

 
 
A.   [The confidential informant] 
contacted myself and had informed me that, once again, he wanted to  to help 
out the community and try and do something about the drug problem.  He said he  he knew of a gentleman in 
town that was selling a lot of drugs, and he said he would be willing to  to 
meet with this gentleman and do a controlled buy for us.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
Q.   How many uses or how  how long 
would that last a person?

 
 
A.   It varies on the  the user 
itself.  If you have someone that 
uses several times a day, if they've been using drugs for a long period of time, 
an eight-ball might last them, you know, anywhere from three to four days, if 
that.  Someone that's more of a 
recreational user, if you will, doesn't have to have it every day, isn't totally 
addicted, an eight-ball can last them a couple of weeks.

 
 
Q.   And what are the different ways of 
ingesting methamphetamine into your system or your body?

 
 
A.   You can smoke 
it.

 
 
Q.   With what?

 
 
A.   With a  they use a glass 
pipe.  A lot of times they'll make 
their own with, like, glass cigar cases the cigars come in.  They'll heat up the end and kind of blow 
out so it makes a bulb at the end of the glass piece, and they'll put a hole in 
it, and then they'll take the amount of meth or whatever, and they'll put it in 
that bowl part and use a lighter to heat it up, and they smoke it that 
way.

 
 
Q.   Okay.  And what other  what other 
ways?

 
 
A.   You can snort it, if you want, you 
can eat it, people have been known to eat it or put it in capsules and swallow 
capsules so it gets ingested and goes through your body a lot slower, or you can 
use it intravenously with a needle.

 
 
           
5.   During the direct 
examination of a second law enforcement officer, the following exchange 
occurred:

 
 
Q.   How long has methamphetamine been 
around, if you're aware?

 
 
A.   It became  it's been around for a 
long time, but it became very popular back  if I remember  well, it was used 
back  one of the methods of making it is the Nazi method.

 
 
Q.   Why do we call it the "Nazi 
method"?

 
 
A.   Because that's how they made it, 
and they gave it to their soldiers as a stimulant, so they would go more, to 
have more energy to go and fight.

 
 
Q.   "They" being the German 
army?

 
 
A.   Yes, the Nazi  yes, 
yes.

 
 
           
6.   The following 
question and answer occurred during the direct examination of a third law 
enforcement officer witness:

 
 
Q.   Why do you go to such length to 
disguise what you're doing?

 
 
A.   The drug business is a really risky 
business, and we just have to be really careful with what we're doing. 

 
 
           
7.   The direct 
examination of the confidential informant included the following questions and 
answers:

 
 
Q.   If you wanted to even today go and 
get methamphetamine, would that be pretty easy?

 
 
A.   Very easy.

 
 
Q.   You could leave this courtroom  
how long would it take you to score?

 
 
A.   Twenty 
minutes.

 
 
Q.   Okay.  And how would you go about doing 
that?

 
 
A.   Go to a bar, club, night club or 
something.

 
 
Q.   And 

 
 
A.   And just ask about it, and they 
would  basically, we make  as long as I have the money.

 
 
Q.   The money is the 
key?

 
 
A.   Yep.

 
 
Q.   Who would you approach if you saw 
one of these gentlemen in a bar?  
Would you approach them and ask them to score some 
meth?

 
 
A.   No.

 
 
Q.   How  how do you know who to 
approach?

 
 
A.   Their eyes, the way they're 
dressed, the way they're looking around at you.  You can just tell.

 
 
           
8.   A fourth law 
enforcement officer testified as follows under direct, and then re-direct, 
examination:

 
 
[Prosecutor]:  Your Honor, at this time, I would offer 
Agent Schmitt as an expert in the field of methamphetamine in SweetwaterCounty.

 
 
[Defense 
counsel]:  No objection, your 
Honor.

 
 
Court:  He'll so be 
designated.

 
 
[Prosecutor]:  Thank you, your 
Honor.

 
 
Q.   Agent Schmitt, can you guess at how 
many controlled buys you've done with CIs

 
 
A.   I  I was actually thinking about 
that before trial, when you asked me before.  Probably right between 2 and 300 would 
be my best guess.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
Q.   Agent Schmitt, is SweetwaterCounty a target rich environment for 
methamphetamine trafficking?

 
 
A.   It keeps us busy, 
yes.

 
 
Q.   Where does it fit in relation to 
the rest of the state in terms of volume of cases that you 
generate?

 
 
A.   Between us, the Gillette, Casper area, we run close 
but we're the busiest.

 
 
           
9.   The prosecutor's 
closing argument contained the following comments:

 
 
            
[The confidential informant] put the  paid him and  and  excuse 
me.  He paid him the money.  He also told you that when he was inside 
the apartment, Zach Strange got several phone calls.  You'll hear those.  You'll have a chance to listen carefully 
to that.  But he testified that in 
his opinion, he was talking to a couple of his drug dealers, talking about 
getting some more drugs to bring into this county to sell to our friends and 
neighbors.

 
 
. 
. . .

 
 
            
I was alarmed when one of the agents testified that SweetwaterCounty has the biggest meth problem in the state of 
Wyoming.  I knew it was big, but I didn't know it 
was the biggest.  There is a lot 
being done to deal with that problem.  
We have great agents here.  
We should be so proud that we have DCI agents that are helping us with 
that problem.  And you will soon get 
to do your step.  Is that going to 
eradicate the meth problem in our community?  No, it won't.  But it will be one less drug dealer out 
there selling meth to our friends and our families.

 
 
            
On voir dire when we were picking the jury, there was more than one 
person, I saw them out here, saying, "Meth has devastated my life.  My daughter's on it.  My friend's on it.  My coworkers are on it."  It is a horrible thing, and if we get 
even one drug dealer to quit from selling it, we're taking a step in the right 
direction.

 
 
            
I think back to the 50s when polio was a big problem.  They started inoculating school 
children.  Did the first shot  
polio shot rid the country of polio?  
No, it didn't.  But one shot 
led to another shot to another shot to another.  Anymore, ladies and gentlemen, we hardly 
even hear of polio anymore.

 
 
            
That's what we can do by bringing drug dealers to trial.  We can take one step, another step, 
another step, we can use confidential informants, we can have letter perfect 
buys, and we can bring people to trial, and we can hope to one day rid this 
county of this pervasive and horrible drug, and I hope you are going to be part 
of the solution.  Thank 
you.

 
 
[¶9]      The type of 
community outrage or community protection theme that we disapproved in Gayler is rampant throughout these 
passages.  It should be obvious to 
anyone familiar with the Wyoming Rules of Evidence that most, if not all, of the 
information presented is simply irrelevant to any of the issues being 
tried.  How methamphetamine is 
manufactured is irrelevant.  Where 
methamphetamine is manufactured is irrelevant.  How methamphetamine is ingested is 
irrelevant.  What effects 
methamphetamine has on the user is irrelevant.  Whether SweetwaterCounty has a methamphetamine problem is 
irrelevant.  Whether SweetwaterCounty has a worse methamphetamine problem than 
CampbellCounty or NatronaCounty is irrelevant.  Whether methamphetamine is easy to find 
or hard to find is irrelevant.  And 
certainly, whether Nazi troops were high on methamphetamine is 
irrelevant.

 
 
[¶10]   We are cognizant of the appellant's 
burden of showing plain error in this case, which showing must include proof of 
prejudice.  In that regard, we 
conclude that the prosecutorial misconduct was so pervasive that we simply 
cannot be confident that the verdict rested in the evidence.  It is not necessary to go back and 
discuss each of the above-quoted portions of the record to recognize that no 
part of the trial was unaffected by the overzealous prosecution.  In the end, literally and figuratively, 
the jury was asked to become part of the solution to the drug problem by 
convicting the appellant.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶11]   Plain error occurred when the 
prosecutor repeatedly committed misconduct by seeking a conviction based upon 
community protection from the drug problem, rather than a conviction based upon 
the evidence.

 
 
[¶12]   Reversed and remanded for a new 
trial.