Opinion ID: 858503
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Promises to MW

Text: [¶34] We turn then to the next evidence Kovach contends that the prosecutor impermissibly suppressed—an alleged promise the prosecutor made to MW to reopen her sexual assault case in exchange for her favorable testimony. Kovach argues that this impeachment evidence was important because the prosecution attempted to portray MW as a reluctant witness against Kovach, when according to Kovach, the prosecution had in fact made a deal to procure MW’s favorable testimony. We reject this alleged suppression as a Brady violation because the record does not support Kovach’s characterization of the conversation between the prosecutor and MW. See Chauncey, ¶ 17, 127 P.3d at 22 (rejecting Brady argument as to an interview because the argument mischaracterized the evidence). [¶35] Kovach offered the following affidavit statements from MW in support of his new trial motion. 5. I was interviewed on several occasions by the Sublette County Sheriff, Sublette County Investigator … and the Sublette County Prosecuting Attorney. 6. At one time during these interviews I was informed by Sublette County officials that I was the State’s most important witness and that I was going to help them put Mr. Kovach away. 7. Weeks before trial I met with the Prosecuting Attorney and him and I discussed my rape that occurred some years prior to this incident. The Prosecuting Attorney expressed to me that he felt the prosecution of the case was not handled properly. He said that after the Kovach case was over, he would look into the case and see if there was anything missed and might be able to reopen it. 13 8. The night before I was to testify I met with the Prosecuting Attorney at his office. We sat in his office for about an hour and a half and talked about among other things my testimony. 9. During this conversation the Prosecuting Attorney told me that Jess Ribelin was hit with the pliers at camp. I told the Prosecuting Attorney that I was certain that Jess Ribelin was not hit with the pliers as I was standing right next to him. We argued about this point and the Prosecuting Attorney said he believed Mr. Ribelin and it was dropped. 10. I also [asked] the Prosecuting Attorney during this conversation what would happen if I ever came across the man that attacked me. I told the Prosecuting Attorney that I would beat the crap out of him and asked what would happen to me. The Prosecuting Attorney told me they would have to arrest me, but would not charge me. [¶36] During the evidentiary hearing on Kovach’s new trial motion, MW testified that the prosecuting attorney made no promise to reopen her sexual assault case and there was no quid pro quo exchange for her favorable testimony. On direct examination by defense counsel, MW testified: Q. Was there at some point any discussion about reopening the case or restarting the [sexual assault] case or something of that nature? A. Right, [the prosecutor] had said that after this was done and over with, Kovach’s trial, that he would have his investigator -- that he might have his investigator look into it. Q. Was there any explanation as to why it needed to wait until after the Kovach trial was done? A. Just because he was busy with this trial. [¶37] On cross-examination by the prosecutor, MW testified: Q. Did [defense counsel] approach you about signing a different affidavit than this one? A. He had e-mailed me one prior to this one to look over, yes. Q. And was it the same as this one? A. No. 14 Q. And what were the differences in the affidavit that you didn’t sign versus the one that’s presented here today? A. On number 7 on the list about that once the case was over that you had promised me you would look into my case. Q. And why did you not sign that affidavit? A. Because that’s not what was said, it was that you – after this was all done and over with that you might look into it, you and your investigator or your investigator. Q. Have I ever promised you anything – A. No. Q. -- for your testimony? A. No. Q. Have I ever given you any representations of incentives if you testified? A. No. Q. When you and I met, we talked about your role as a witness in Mr. Kovach’s case; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And we also would talk about your role as a victim in a different case; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever believe that those conversations were in any way intertwined between your prior case and Mr. Kovach’s case? A. No, I felt when we were talking about Travis’ case that I was the witness and then when you and I were talking that it was simply you and I talking, not the prosecuting attorney and the witness talking, just that we were having a conversation. Q. And did you feel like I was listening to your concerns and the concerns you expressed-- A. Yes. Q. --in your role as a witness? A. Yes. Q. Now [defense counsel] has asked you about the night before the trial – A. Uh-huh. Q. --when we discussed what would happen if you saw your alleged perpetrator in the grocery store? A. Yes. 15 Q. We had some pretty serious conversations about your rape incident that night, did we not? A. Yes. Q. When you brought up seeing him in the grocery store and what you would do, did you present that question to me in a serious – A. No. Q. --question? A. No. Q. If I recall correctly you were actually laughing or smiling a bit when you asked that question? A. Correct. Q. And in many ways it was a way to lighten the mood from what had been a very serious conversation; is that correct? A. Yes, yeah. Q. And when I responded, “Well, you would have to be arrested, but I’m not sure you’d be charged” and I smiled when I said that, did you feel like that I was making a promise of any kind? A. No, no. [¶38] MW’s testimony is clear that the prosecutor made no promises to her in exchange for her favorable testimony. And, her testimony during Kovach’s trial was consistent with the lack of any such promise. MW testified that she at no time saw Kovach hit Jess Ribelin with a pair of fencing pliers, which was contrary to the testimony the prosecution wanted from her. She also openly disagreed with the prosecutor at another point in her testimony, when the prosecutor asked her to confirm her belief that Jess Ribelin’s ear was injured in the manner Mr. Ribelin had reported, that is, when Kovach shoved the fencing pliers into his ear canal: Q. Just as a – your common, every-day experience and your common sense, did what you see inside his ear, did that match the description as to how he got it? A. Being hit with a fist could have caused the same thing too, but my concern – Q. [MW], that’s not what you said yesterday evening, was it? A. Yes, it was. Q. Do you recall having a conversation with me yesterday evening? A. Yes, I do. 16 Q. Do you recall telling me that it was unlikely that that could have been caused by a fist because it was inside the ear canal? A. That is not what I said, …. [¶39] Kovach bears the burden of proving that exculpatory evidence existed but was suppressed. Wilkening v. State, 2007 WY 187, ¶ 12, 172 P.3d 385, 388 (Wyo. 2007). We find that Kovach did not meet his burden of showing that a promise was exchanged between the prosecutor and MW, and we therefore reject the claimed Brady violation.