Title: SHAWN OSBORNE v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

SHAWN OSBORNE v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2012 WY 123285 P.3d 248Case Number: S-11-0281Decided: 09/13/2012
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2012 

 
SHAWN 
OSBORNE,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 N. Olson, Chief Appellate 
Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate 
Counsel.  Argument by Mr. Westling.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory A. Phillips, 
Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stewart M. Young, Faculty 
Director, Joshua Beau Taylor, Student Director, Kyle A. Ridgeway, Student 
Intern, Prosecution Assistance Program.  Argument by Mr. 
Ridgeway.
 
Before KITE, 
C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
KITE, C.J., 
delivers the opinion of the Court; VOIGT, J., files a specially concurring 
opinion.
 
KITE, Chief 
Justice.
 
[¶1]  
A Sheridan County jury found Shawn Osborne guilty of first degree 
murder.  He appeals the conviction, claiming his trial counsel 
was ineffective in failing to properly investigate and seek expert assistance 
with his defense that he was under the influence of alcohol and amphetamines to 
such an extent that he could not form the specific intent necessary for first 
degree murder.  We conclude Mr. Osborne has failed to meet his 
burden of proving he was prejudiced by any deficient performance of trial 
counsel and affirm his conviction. 
 
ISSUE
 
[¶2]  
Mr. Osborne states the issue for this Court’s consideration as 
follows:
 
Was Shawn Osborne 
denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly 
investigate and secure expert testimony thereby violating the Sixth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution and the requirements of Strickland v. 
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 
S. Ct. 2052 
(1984)?
 
The State phrases the 
issue as follows:
 
Wyoming Statute[] § 
6-1-202 disallows self-induced intoxication as a defense to a criminal charge, 
but it allows defendants to offer evidence of it if relevant to negate a 
specific-intent element of a crime.  Osborne’s trial counsel 
offered evidence of self-induced intoxication to negate the premeditation 
element of the first-degree murder charge but did not present any expert 
testimony.  Was counsel ineffective in failing to use an 
expert even though he reasonably investigated the facts of Osborne’s case and 
made all the relevant arguments and objections at trial?
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]  
In 2010, the Sheridan County prosecuting attorney charged Mr. Osborne 
with first degree murder in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(a) 
(LexisNexis 2011).  According to the affidavit of probable 
cause attached to the information, Dee Himes came to the Sheridan police 
department on the afternoon of January 15, 2010, and reported that a dead body 
was under the trailer home where she and her boyfriend lived.  
She told police that Mr. Osborne, who also lived in the home, had 
awakened her and her boyfriend in the early morning hours that same day and told 
them he had killed Gerald Bloom, another occupant of the trailer 
home.  She stated that she went to Mr. Bloom’s bedroom where 
she saw his body lying on the floor.  She said Mr. Osborne 
told her later that morning that Mr. Bloom’s body was buried underneath the 
trailer home.  
 
[¶4]  
Based upon Ms. Himes’ report, police officers went to the trailer home 
and announced their presence.  Mr. Osborne was the first to 
respond to the officers.  His clothes and arms were stained 
with blood and he appeared to have been asleep.  Inside the 
trailer home the officers found a knife in the kitchen sink along with cleaning 
products and what appeared to be diluted blood.  The knife was 
later identified as belonging to Mr. Osborne.  The officers 
also found blood stains on the carpet in one of the bedrooms.  
The officers found Mr. Bloom’s body inside a sleeping bag in the crawl 
space underneath the trailer home.  An autopsy revealed that 
Mr. Bloom died as a result of stab wounds to the neck.   

 
[¶5]  
Based upon the evidence found at the trailer home and the witness 
statements, the officers took Mr. Osborne to the police station to be 
interviewed.  During the interview, the officers told Mr. 
Osborne they had talked to other witnesses and asked Mr. Osborne if he wanted to 
tell them his side of the story.  Mr. Osborne stated that he 
had gotten into a fight and it went too far.  Mr. Osborne then 
requested an attorney and the officers ended the interview and placed him under 
arrest. 
 
[¶6]  
Mr. Osborne was charged with first degree murder.  He 
entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or 
deficiency.  The district court ordered him to be evaluated at 
the Wyoming State Hospital twice, the first time to determine whether he was 
mentally fit to proceed pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-303 (LexisNexis 2009) 
and later to determine whether due to mental illness or deficiency he lacked the 
capacity at the time of the killing to appreciate the wrongfulness of his 
conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law pursuant to § 7-11-304 
(LexisNexis 2011).  The state hospital concluded he was 
mentally fit to proceed and did not lack the capacity to appreciate the 
wrongfulness of his conduct.   
 
[¶7]  
The case proceeded to trial.  The State called 
David Widiker-Fausset as its first witness.  Mr. Widiker-Fausset testified that he and Mr. Osborne 
had been drinking heavily throughout the evening and early morning hours 
preceding the killing.  He testified that as they drove to the 
trailer home after the bars closed, Mr. Osborne became agitated and angry about 
people owing him money, including Mr. Bloom to whom he had loaned 
$20.  Mr. Widiker-Fausset testified that Mr. Osborne continued 
to be angry and agitated when they arrived at the trailer home.  
He said Mr. Osborne headed for the bedroom where Mr. Bloom was sleeping, 
stating that he was going to get his money.  According to Mr. 
Widiker-Fausset, Mr. Osborne said, “Watch this, I’m 
going to kill that motherfucker.”  Mr. Widiker-Fausset 
testified that he followed Mr. Osborne to the bedroom and watched as Mr. Osborne 
began to choke Mr. Bloom.  He said Mr. Bloom struggled and the 
two men fell to the floor where Mr. Bloom lost consciousness.  
He said Mr. Osborne checked Mr. Bloom’s pulse, determined that he was 
still alive and then slit Mr. Bloom’s throat twice and stabbed him in the neck 
five or six times.   
 
[¶8]  
Mr. Widiker-Fausset testified that after killing 
Mr. Bloom, Mr. Osborne washed his hands in the kitchen sink and then went back 
into the bedroom. According to Mr. Widiker-Fausset, 
Mr. Osborne came out several minutes later pulling a sleeping bag with Mr. 
Bloom’s body inside.  He pulled it out the front door and over 
to the crawl space under the trailer home.  He pulled aside 
some boards, shoved the sleeping bag containing the body into the crawl space 
and replaced the boards.  Mr. Widiker-Fausset 
testified that Mr. Osborne then said, “There, I did it,” went back inside the 
trailer home and passed out on the couch.  
Mr. Widiker-Fausset testified that he, Mr. Osborne and 
others went to breakfast later that morning.  He noticed Mr. 
Osborne had been drinking again and was still wearing the blood stained clothes 
he had on when he stabbed Mr. Bloom.   
 
[¶9]  
The State also presented the testimony of a forensic pathologist who 
examined Mr. Bloom’s body after the killing.  He confirmed 
that Mr. Bloom had been strangled around the neck, his throat had been slit 
twice and he had been stabbed in the neck four times.  He 
testified that two of the stab wounds involved significant force.  
He also testified Mr. Osborne’s knife was consistent with the stab wounds 
and the slits to the throat.   
 
[¶10]  
The State played for the jury the video recording of the police 
interviewing Mr. Osborne.  When officers advised him they had 
spoken to other witnesses and asked if he wanted to tell his side of the story, 
Mr. Osborne said that he was “pretty sure what everyone else said is what 
happened.”  He said he had gotten into a fight with Mr. Bloom 
over money and “went a little too far.”  He asked for an 
attorney, stating “I’m in some deep shit, I know” and said he needed a lawyer to 
figure out whether “it was gonna be for life or for ten 
years.”  
 
[¶11]  
The public defender appointed to represent Mr. Osborne attempted to prove 
Mr. Osborne was so intoxicated at the time of the offense that he was unable to 
form the specific intent necessary to support a first degree murder 
conviction.  He presented evidence that Mr. Osborne began 
drinking on his way home from work on the evening before the killing and 
continued to drink heavily through the night and into the early morning 
hours.  He presented evidence that Mr. Osborne drank numerous 
beers, at least one and possibly two pints of vodka and numerous shots of 
whiskey.  He also presented evidence that Mr. Osborne had 
taken Adderall, an amphetamine, shortly before the killing.  
Witnesses who were with Mr. Osborne on the night of the killing testified 
he was drunk.  
 
[¶12]  
Mr. Osborne testified in his own defense.  He told the 
jury that he had three beers on his way home from work at 8:00 p.m., and drank a 
pint of vodka and another beer and a half at his girlfriend’s house between 9:00 
and 10:00 p.m.  He testified that he and his friends then went 
to the bars where he drank beer and shots of whiskey for the next four hours in 
addition to taking a couple of Adderall.  He testified 
that he probably drank five to eight rounds of beer and shots at the first bar 
and by the time they left for the second bar around 1:00 a.m. he was having a 
hard time.  He testified that he probably continued drinking 
beer and shots of whiskey at the second bar but was not sure because he was not 
very coherent by then.  He testified that he may have 
purchased another pint of vodka before leaving the second bar and remembered 
opening a beer when he arrived back at the trailer home.    

 
[¶13]  
Evidence presented at trial further showed that after killing Mr. Bloom 
and disposing of the body, Mr. Osborne passed out on the couch.  
The next morning he drank another pint of vodka before going to breakfast 
and more vodka and beer when he returned to the trailer home.  
The defense presented evidence that he then passed out on the couch until 
the police arrived.  The police officers who interviewed Mr. 
Osborne testified that he smelled of alcohol and acted carefree during the 
interview possibly because he had been drinking. 
 
[¶14]  
At the close of the evidence, the district court instructed the jury that 
if it believed Mr. Osborne at the time of the killing was suffering from 
self-induced intoxication to such a degree that he was unable to formulate the 
intent to kill a human being purposely with premeditated malice, it should find 
him not guilty of first degree murder.  The district court 
also instructed the jury as to the elements of second degree murder and 
manslaughter.  The court instructed the jury that in the event 
it found Mr. Osborne not guilty of first degree murder, it must decide whether 
he was guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter.  The 
jury found Mr. Osborne guilty of first degree murder.  

 
[¶15]  
After the verdict, another attorney entered an appearance on Mr. 
Osborne’s behalf and the district court entered an order allowing the public 
defender who had represented him at trial to withdraw.  The 
new attorney subsequently filed a motion asserting that Mr. Osborne was entitled 
to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence and ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  The new evidence took the form of Dr. 
Craig W. Beaver, a forensic neuropsychologist retained after the verdict to 
examine Mr. Osborne.  Dr. Beaver concluded it was more 
probable than not that Mr. Osborne was in a substance abuse delirium at the time 
of the killing leaving him incapable of forming the specific intent necessary 
for first degree murder.  Mr. Osborne’s new attorney argued 
that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain an expert to explain to 
the jury what substance abuse delirium is and how it impacted Mr. Osborne’s 
cognitive ability to premeditate or form the intent to kill.  

 
[¶16]  
The district court convened an evidentiary hearing at which time Mr. 
Osborne’s new counsel presented testimony from Dr. Beaver and Mr. Osborne’s 
trial counsel.  After the hearing, the district court denied 
the new trial motion.  In summary, the district court 
concluded any deficient performance by trial counsel did not sufficiently 
prejudice Mr. Osborne’s defense to warrant granting a new trial.  
The court sentenced Mr. Osborne to life in prison without the possibility 
of parole.  Mr. Osborne timely appealed to this Court from the 
judgment and sentence.
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW
 
[¶17]  
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve mixed questions of 
law and fact; consequently, our review is de novo.  
Ken v. State, 2011 WY 167, ¶ 27, 267 P.3d 567, 574 
(Wyo. 2011).     
            

   

DISCUSSION
 
[¶18]  
Mr. Osborne asserts his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 
adequately investigate and seek expert assistance with his voluntary 
intoxication defense.  He submits that substance abuse was 
clearly an issue from the beginning in this case and voluntary intoxication was 
his only viable defense at trial.  He further submits that an 
evaluation by an independent mental health examiner was essential to adequately 
investigate his defense.  Upon an expert’s finding that he was 
in a substance abuse delirium and incapable of forming the specific intent 
necessary to support his conviction, he contends expert testimony was necessary 
to explain to the jury what substance abuse delirium is and how it impacted his 
cognitive function.  The State responds that trial counsel 
reasonably investigated and argued the intoxication defense at trial and, in any 
event, Mr. Osborne cannot show that any deficiency in his trial counsel’s 
performance prejudiced the defense.
  

[¶19]  
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 
must first establish that trial counsel’s performance was deficient.  
Ken, ¶ 27, 267 P.3d  at 574, citing Sanchez v. 
State, 2011 WY 77, ¶ 40, 253 P.3d 136, 147 (Wyo. 2011); 
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 
80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).  This requires a showing 
that counsel failed to render such assistance as would have been offered by a 
reasonably competent attorney.  Ken, ¶ 27, 
267 P.3d  at 574.  Assuming a sufficient showing 
that counsel performed deficiently, a defendant must also prove the deficient 
performance prejudiced the defense.  Id.  
That is, a defendant must show a reasonable probability exists that, but 
for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome would have been 
different.  Id.  In order to prevail 
on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove both deficient performance 
and prejudice.  The failure to make the required showing of 
either deficient performance or prejudice will result in a finding that counsel 
was not ineffective.  Id.  

 
[¶20]  
Counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a 
reasonable decision that makes particular investigations 
unnecessary.  Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 29, 
86 P.3d 851, 860 (Wyo. 2004), citing McCoy v. State, 
886 P.2d 252, 254 (Wyo. 1994).  When an 
ineffective assistance claim is based upon the failure to call an expert 
witness, the defendant must show an expert was available who would have 
testified consistently with his theory.  Id., ¶ 30, 
86 P.3d  at 860.  However, upon making a showing 
that counsel did not reasonably investigate or unreasonably failed to call an 
expert witness, a defendant still must show that the deficient performance 
prejudiced him.     
 
[¶21]  
In the present case, the record demonstrates that trial counsel 
presented, and the jury rejected, the defense that Mr. Osborne was too 
intoxicated to form the specific intent necessary for a first degree murder 
conviction.  The jury heard testimony that Mr. Osborne was a 
heavy drinker and regularly consumed a pint of vodka after work on the drive 
home from Buffalo to Sheridan.  His girlfriend testified that 
he drank on a daily basis, it was more common than not for him to be drinking 
and she had only seen him a couple of times when he was not 
drinking.   
 
[¶22]  
The jury also heard testimony that Mr. Osborne had been drinking heavily 
on the night of the killing from the time he left Buffalo at approximately 8:00 
p.m. until 2:30 or 3:00 the next morning and that he had taken a couple 
of Adderall sometime between 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. that 
night.  Witnesses testified that Mr. Osborne drank a lot over 
the course of the night, was drunk when they were at the first bar, and 
continued to drink beer and shots of whiskey at the second bar.  
Mr. Widiker-Fausset told the jury that after killing Mr. 
Bloom and putting his body in the crawl space, Mr. Osborne returned to the 
trailer home and passed out on the couch.  There simply is no 
question defense counsel presented evidence showing that Mr. Osborne was 
suffering from self-induced intoxication at the time of the killing.  
Based upon the district court’s instruction, the jury knew that it must 
find Mr. Osborne not guilty of first degree murder if it had reasonable doubt 
that his condition left him unable to form the specific intent to kill with 
premeditated malice.  
 
[¶23]  
Despite the evidence, instruction and argument presented concerning Mr. 
Osborne’s level of intoxication, Mr. Osborne argues trial counsel was 
ineffective because he did not seek expert assistance to adequately explain to 
the jury the effect his alcohol and amphetamine consumption likely had on his 
ability to form the intent necessary to support a first degree murder 
conviction.  He maintains that if expert testimony had been 
presented, it is reasonably probable the jury would not have convicted him of 
first degree murder.  We are not persuaded. 
 
[¶24]  
Mr. Widiker-Fausset testified that Mr. Osborne was angry at 
Mr. Bloom and said he was going to kill him. Mr. Widiker-Fausset 
further testified that Mr. Osborne attacked Mr. Bloom, grabbing him around the 
neck with his arm and putting him in a choke hold.   Mr. 
Osborne himself testified that he choked Mr. Bloom “as hard as he could until he 
stopped moving” and released his choke hold only when Mr. Bloom was no longer 
moving.  Mr. Widiker-Fausset testified that upon 
indications that Mr. Bloom was still alive, Mr. Osborne slit his throat twice 
and then stabbed him in the neck five or six times.  The 
forensic pathologist testified the force of the chokehold broke Mr. Bloom’s 
trachea and the stab wounds were inflicted with significant force.  

 
[¶25]  
Immediately after killing Mr. Bloom and despite his inebriated condition, 
Mr. Osborne washed the blood from his hands and knife, put Mr. Bloom’s body in a 
sleeping bag, pulled it out of the bedroom, through the trailer home and outside 
where he placed it in the crawl space and attempted to conceal it by covering 
the opening with boards.   Perhaps most damning of all, 
after continuing to consume alcohol on the day following the killing, Mr. 
Osborne was lucid and responsive in his interactions with police officers, all 
but admitted killing Mr. Bloom and was very much aware of the seriousness of his 
crime. 
 
[¶26]  
The evidence against Mr. Osborne was overwhelming.  
Given the strength of that evidence, we simply are not persuaded that a 
reasonable probability exists that but for any failure on defense counsel’s part 
to investigate and present expert testimony concerning substance abuse delirium, 
the outcome would have been different.  Even with such expert 
testimony, we conclude the probability in this case is that the jury would have 
convicted Mr. Osborne of first degree murder.  
 
[¶27] 
We affirm Mr. Osborne’s first degree murder conviction.
 
 
VOIGT, 
Justice, specially 
concurring.
 
[¶28]   
I concur in the result reached by the majority because that result is 
mandated by precedent.  I write separately only to give voice 
to a concern we all should have with the Strickland standard cited in the 
majority, a standard that we have followed for years.  The 
problem is that, while it is often relatively easy to prove defense counsel’s 
deficient performance, it is practically impossible to prove prejudice because 
it is practically impossible to prove that the outcome would have been different 
had the jury been allowed to hear certain evidence.  This is 
especially true because our system does not allow a defendant to query the jury 
about its deliberations.  W.R.E. 
606(b); U.R.D.C. 701.
 
[¶29]   
In finding a lack of prejudice, the majority states that the evidence of 
guilt was overwhelming. See supra ¶ 26.  We frequently 
rely upon that rationale in finding no prejudice under 
Strickland.  See, e.g., Sincock 
v. State, 2003 WY 115, ¶ 59, 76 P.3d 323, 342 (Wyo. 
2003).  Of course, where defense counsel has failed to produce 
evidence, it is likely to appear that the State’s evidence is 
overwhelming.  A pair of deuces is overwhelming where one’s 
opponent folds without showing his cards.
 
[¶30]   
In the instant case, defense counsel recognized that the only defense 
available to the defendant was the argument that the combination of alcohol 
consumption and the ingestion of the drug Adderall rendered the 
defendant incapable of forming the specific intent to kill.  
At the hearing upon the motion for a new trial, subsequent counsel 
produced evidence through an expert forensic neuropsychologist that the 
defendant likely was suffering from substance abuse delirium, which would have 
left him incapable of forming the necessary specific intent.  
This question is so obviously beyond the ken of the average person that 
defense counsel’s mention during the jury trial of the defendant’s use 
of Adderall was meaningless without expert testimony.  
The only way to counter “overwhelming” evidence is with contrary 
evidence.  Counsel’s deficiency in this regard was 
glaring.
 
[¶31]   
The point I wish to make is that where defense counsel’s performance has 
been shown to be so ineffective as to deprive the defendant of that counsel 
assured him by the Sixth Amendment, we cannot rely upon the adversarial process 
as having produced a just trial.  Nevertheless, we continue to 
require the appellant to prove the impossible--that the results would have been 
different. See, e.g., Montez v. State, 2009 WY 17, ¶ 3, 
201 P.3d 434, 436 (Wyo. 2009); Harlow v. State, 2005 WY 12, ¶ 
45, 105 P.3d 1049, 1069 (Wyo. 2005).  It seems 
that there should be some line of egregiousness that, when crossed, the 
presumption becomes one of ineffectiveness.