Opinion ID: 1175474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Semen on Tissue Paper

Text: The prosecution called Diana Harrison, one of appellant's receptionists, to testify about appellant's office practices. When the questioning turned to Mrs. Harrison's discovery of a piece of tissue paper in an office wastebasket which she thought contained semen, defense counsel objected on the grounds of relevancy, lack of foundation and unfair prejudice. A bench conference ensued. The prosecutor admitted that the semen would not be linked to either appellant or any of the incidents for which appellant was charged, but the court nevertheless permitted the testimony on grounds that it would show appellant's opportunity and modus operandi. The only condition the court imposed on the admission of the testimony was that Mrs. Harrison explain how she was able to identify the substance as semen. After the bench conference, Mrs. Harrison testified that on a Wednesday in 1983, while taking the trash from the pelvic examination room, she noticed a wet tissue on the top of the trash bag. She picked up the tissue and smelled it. When the prosecutor asked her whether she associated the smell with anything, she replied: Semen. She also testified that she discovered the wet tissue before anyone else had arrived at the office that day so she checked the appointment book to see if appellant had conducted a pelvic examination the previous afternoon. She discovered that he had. We agree with appellant that Mrs. Harrison's tissue paper testimony was inadmissible under Rule 402, W.R.E. because it was irrelevant under Rule 401, W.R.E., which states that `[r]elevant evidence' means evidence having any 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. No definitive test ever established that the substance on the tissue was semen. But, even if we accept Mrs. Harrison's opinion that it was, it is hard to see how that fact would prove anything of consequence. [1] The prosecution presented no evidence that the semen was appellant's. Nor was it established that the semen was ejaculated during a sexual assault. The district court abused its discretion when it permitted the testimony. The erroneous admission of evidence does not mandate reversal of a conviction in all instances.    For an error to be regarded as harmful, there must be a reasonable possibility that in the absence of the error, the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant. Bishop v. State, Wyo., 687 P.2d 242, 246-247 (1984), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1203, 84 L.Ed.2d 345 (1985); see also Rule 103(a), W.R.E. and Rule 7.04, W.R.A.P. We are quite sure that the verdict would have been the same if the court had excluded the tissue testimony. The tissue testimony was inconsequential when compared with the other overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt. Nine victims testified in great detail about the sexual assaults committed by appellant. Their testimony was often corroborated by their friends or family members who they told of the assaults. The admission of Mrs. Harrison's testimony was not prejudicial error; and, therefore, it is not a basis for reversal.