Title: Bruyette v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

WILLIAM ARTHUR BRUYETTE v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2011 WY 99Case Number: S-10-0250Decided: 06/24/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
 

WILLIAM 
ARTHUR BRUYETTE,Appellant (Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee (Plaintiff).

 
 
 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sheridan County

The 
Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Diane 
Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina Olson, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. 
Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Katrina J. 
Brown, Student Intern.

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

 
 

KITE, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]  William Arthur Bruyette was charged with 
felony possession of marijuana.  At 
trial, he sought to introduce evidence that he obtained the marijuana in 
California with a prescription for medical marijuana.  The district court granted the State's 
in limine motion to exclude evidence relating to a medical marijuana defense and 
instructed the jury that possession of medical marijuana was not a defense to 
the crime charged.  The jury 
convicted Mr. Bruyette of felony possession of marijuana.  Mr. Bruyette appeals, claiming the 
district court denied him his constitutional right to present his defense.     

 
 
 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]  Mr. Bruyette presents the following 
issue for this Court's determination:

 
 
            
Whether he was denied his right to present a defense to the jury 
guaranteed by Art. 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution and the United States 
Constitution.1 

  

       

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]  On December 17, 2009, police officers 
arrested Mr. Bruyette in Sheridan County, Wyoming for felony possession of 
marijuana in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(iii) (LexisNexis 
2009).2  He informed the officers at the time 
that he had obtained the marijuana in California with a medical prescription 
card.    

 
 
[¶4]  Prior to trial, the State filed a motion 
in limine asking the district court to prohibit Mr. Bruyette from presenting a 
defense or evidence related to his possible right under California law to 
possess and use marijuana for medical reasons.  After a hearing, the district court 
conditionally granted the motion, but gave Mr. Bruyette several days to produce 
a prescription or other document showing that a physician had advised him to use 
marijuana for medical reasons.  
Several days later, defense counsel provided notice that Mr. Bruyette had 
not obtained a prescription for medical marijuana that could be introduced 
pursuant to § 35-7-1031(c). 

 
 
[¶5] 
 The State then filed a second 
motion in limine, asking the district court to prohibit any reference during 
trial to medical marijuana or the use of marijuana for medical purposes.  At a hearing before jury selection on 
the first day of trial, defense counsel responded to the State's motion by 
stating he would not be presenting an affirmative defense involving medical 
marijuana.  The district court 
granted the State's motion, stating that the parties were barred from making 
"any reference to medical marijuana, prescription or physician or doctor 
recommendation or justification for the marijuana, as well as therapeutic or 
medicinal treatment or value for the marijuana."  

 
 
[¶6]  During the trial, the district court 
mentioned to the parties that defense counsel had submitted a jury instruction 
addressing medical marijuana and it did not intend to give the instruction.  After presentation of the State's case, 
Mr. Bruyette elected to testify in his own defense.  During direct examination, in response 
to defense counsel's question, "Did [the police] ask you about marijuana?" Mr. 
Bruyette testified, "He [the officer] mentioned that my daughter had said that I 
had a medical marijuana card from California."  The State objected to the testimony as 
violating the district court's pre-trial order.  The State asked the court to strike the 
testimony and give a curative instruction advising the jury that the possession 
of a medical marijuana card was not a defense to the charge of possessing 
marijuana.  Defense counsel 
responded that he had not expected the testimony, he had gone over the court's 
order with Mr. Bruyette and he had no objection to the court striking the 
testimony.  The district court 
admonished Mr. Bruyette not to make any further reference to medical marijuana 
or a card in front of the jury but offered him the opportunity to make an offer 
of proof.  Defense counsel declined. 
 The district court then told the 
jury that Mr. Bruyette's testimony concerning medical marijuana was stricken and 
was not to be considered and that his possession of a medical marijuana card was 
not a defense to the charge of unlawfully possessing marijuana.  

 
 
[¶7]  During the instruction conference, 
defense counsel offered an instruction stating that a valid prescription for 
medical marijuana was a defense under § 35-7-1031(c).  The district court declined to give the 
instruction on the ground that no evidence was presented that a valid 
prescription existed, the defense had given notice that there was no 
prescription and a medical marijuana card did not constitute a 
prescription.  The district court 
also advised that the curative instruction given during trial would not be 
repeated when the other instructions were read and the State was not to 
reference the curative instruction during closing argument because the testimony 
concerning a medical marijuana card had been stricken and any further reference 
to that testimony would violate the in limine order.        

 
 
[¶8]  After the district court read the jury 
instructions, the jury deliberated for twenty minutes and returned a verdict of 
guilty.  The district court imposed 
a sentence of eighteen to thirty months incarceration, suspended the sentence 
and ordered Mr. Bruyette to serve a split sentence of 121 days in the county 
detention center and two years unsupervised probation.  Mr. Bruyette timely appealed.  

 
 
 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶9]  Mr. Bruyette contends the district court 
denied him his constitutional right to present a defense when it precluded him 
from presenting evidence of the medical marijuana card and instructed the jury 
that the card was not a defense to the possession charge.  We review constitutional issues de novo.  Smith v. State, 2009 WY 2, ¶ 35, 199 P.3d 1052, 1063 (Wyo. 2009).

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶10]  A criminal defendant has the right to 
present evidence in his own defense.  
Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 103, 
¶ 24, 191 P.3d 974, 981 (Wyo. 2008).  
That right, however, is not unlimited.  Id., citing Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 5, 63 P.3d 875, 879 (Wyo. 2003).  For 
evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant.  W.R.E. 402.  Relevant evidence is evidence having a 
"tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be 
without the evidence."  W.R.E. 
401.  Even relevant evidence may be 
excluded, however, "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the 
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the 
jury."  W.R.E. 
403.

 
 

[¶11]  Here, the district court concluded a 
California physician's recommendation to use marijuana for medical purposes (if 
such a recommendation existed) was not a 
valid prescription or medical practitioner's order within 
the meaning of § 35-7-1031(c) 
and 
was not, therefore, a valid defense to a charge in Wyoming for possessing 
marijuana.  The district court's 
ruling is consistent with our holding in Burns v. State, 2011 WY 5, ¶ 12, 246 P.3d 283, 286 (Wyo. 2011), which was issued after Mr. Bruyette filed his brief 
in this Court.  We held in Burns that a defendant charged with 
possession of marijuana under § 35-7-1031(c) is not exempt from criminal 
liability in Wyoming even if he legitimately obtained a medical marijuana 
prescription or physician's order under another state's law.  As we said in Burns, the possession of marijuana, even 
for medical purposes, is illegal; therefore, it would be illegal under Wyoming 
law for a physician to prescribe or order, in any sense, the possession of 
marijuana.  It is, likewise, illegal 
under Wyoming law for a patient, or anyone else, to possess marijuana even if he 
obtained it on the basis of a physician prescription or recommendation.  The question of whether or not Mr. 
Bruyette had a medical marijuana card from a California physician was 
irrelevant.   Because it was 
irrelevant, the district court properly excluded it. 

 
 
[¶12]  Affirmed.     

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Art. 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution provides in pertinent part:  "In all criminal prosecutions the 
accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel, . . . ."    Mr. Bruyette does not cite a 
particular provision of the United States Constitution but indirectly references 
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the compulsory process 
and confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment in which a criminal defendant's 
guarantee of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense is 
rooted.  Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 
106 S. Ct. 2142, 2146, 90 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1986). 

 
 

2Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(iii) 
provides:

 
 
            
(c) It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a 
controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or 
pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the 
course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this 
act.  Any person who violates this 
subsection:

            
. . . .

            
(iii) And has in his possession any other controlled substance classified 
in Schedule I, II or III in an amount greater than set forth in paragraph (c)(i) 
of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more 
than five (5) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), 
or both[.]