Opinion ID: 6500711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Material Prejudice

Text: [¶26] There is no question that constitutional errors occurred in this case. The record clearly reflects that the district court—by factoring Ms. Jewkes’ exercise of her constitutional right to remain silent and an unsupported view of community expectations into its sentencing decision—violated clear and unequivocal rules of law. The pivotal remaining issue is whether Ms. Jewkes was prejudiced by the errors. [¶27] “[T]he public legitimacy of our justice system relies on procedures that are ‘neutral, accurate, consistent, trustworthy, and fair,’ and that ‘provide opportunities for error correction.’” Rosales-Mireles, 585 U.S. at ---, 138 S.Ct. at 1908 (quoting Josh Bowers & Paul Robinson, Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: The Shared Aims and Occasional Conflicts of Legitimacy and Moral Credibility, 47 Wake Forest L. Rev. 211, 215–16 (2012)). [¶28] When evaluating prejudice, we consider whether the errors undermine the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. “We reverse a conviction only when the accumulated effect of the errors ‘constitutes prejudice and the conduct of the trial is other than fair and impartial.’” Black v. State, 2017 WY 135, ¶ 46, 405 P.3d 1045, 1060 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Watts v. State, 2016 WY 40, ¶ 23, 370 P.3d 104, 112 (Wyo. 2016)). [¶29] Arguably, either of these constitutional errors standing alone prejudiced Ms. Jewkes, but when combined, there is no doubt Ms. Jewkes suffered prejudice. See Schmunk v. State, 714 P.2d 724, 726 (Wyo. 1986) (“Without question cumulative error may assemble in such proportion that reversal is required.” (citations omitted)). 10 [¶30] The district court’s reliance on Ms. Jewkes’ exercise of her right to remain silent and its view of community expectations were factored into her sentence. We cannot know what Ms. Jewkes’ sentence would have been had the district court not incorporated constitutionally prohibited factors into its sentencing decision. The application of not one, but two, constitutionally prohibited aggravating factors in sentencing undermines the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings and is plain error.