Opinion ID: 2588657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: applying the saldana test

Text: [¶ 7] We should not lose focus of the limited issue before us. We determined in Wheeler, 705 P.2d at 863, that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads as follows, does not create a right to counsel before a DWUI arrestee decides whether to take a chemical test: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (Emphasis added.) The question we now face is whether Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10, which reads as follows, provides such a right: In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, to have a copy thereof, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses, and to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. When the location of the offense cannot be established with certainty, venue may be placed in the county or district where the corpus delecti [delicti] is found, or in any county or district in which the victim was transported. (Emphasis added.) We will answer the question by applying the six criteria identified in Saldana, 846 P.2d at 622 (Golden, J., concurring): 1. The textual language. 2. The differences in the texts. 3. Constitutional history. 4. Pre-existing state law. 5. Structural differences. 6. Matters of particular state or local concern.