Opinion ID: 2789680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gary Galbreath Testimony

Text: [¶9] Mr. Galbreath next contends that trial counsel acted ineffectively when examining Gary Galbreath, Mr. Galbreath’s father, on the witness stand. During the investigation, police officers questioned Gary Galbreath when they executed a search warrant on his home.1 The police asked Gary Galbreath whether he knew that his son and S.V. were having sex. Gary Galbreath responded that he knew they were having sex because he could hear them in Mr. Galbreath’s room. However, upon examination by the prosecution at trial, Gary Galbreath recanted his earlier statement and denied that he heard his son and S.V. having sex. In an attempt to explain the discrepancies in the statement that Gary Galbreath made to the police and his testimony at trial, Mr. Galbreath’s trial attorney questioned Gary Galbreath about medications that he had been taking when he spoke to the police. Gary Galbreath testified: 1 During the time in question, Mr. Galbreath frequently stayed at Gary Galbreath’s home in Laramie where the victim and Mr. Galbreath often had contact. 3 A. April 18th is when they served the search warrant. Q. Okay. Do you remember that day very well? A. Do I what? Q. Do you remember April 18, 2013 very well? A. No. Q. Were you taking medication at that time? A. Oh, lots of it, man. Q. What type of medication were you taking? A. Well, I had had a prostate operation and I was taking everything Dr. Flock could give me. Percocet and all that stuff. And it’s a terrible operation. And I was taking all of it, anything I could get. Q. Did you ever read the side effects of some of those medications that you took? A. Well, I’m taking Type II diabetes medicine and warfarin for AFib. But no, I never read the side effects of medication. Q. Okay. So you don’t know whether or not taking the Percocet, the pain medication, you might have agreed with law enforcement if they asked you a question? A. I probably would, I suppose. On redirect, the prosecutor pointed out to Gary Galbreath that he had not, in fact, had prostate surgery until May 6, 2013, well after he had spoken with the police. Mr. Galbreath’s trial attorney attempted to rehabilitate Gary Galbreath’s testimony by recalling him to the stand during the defense’s case in chief, but was unable to effectively do so. [¶10] While we agree that trial counsel’s examination of Gary Galbreath may not have been competent, we cannot conclude that Mr. Galbreath was prejudiced as a result. Mr. Galbreath carries the burden to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, absent the 4 deficient performance of counsel, the outcome of his trial would have been different. Bloomer, 2010 WY 88, ¶ 18, 233 P.3d at 976. Mr. Galbreath laments the fact that his trial attorney failed to adequately investigate the dates of Gary Galbreath’s prostate surgery, resulting in a “devastating effect on [Mr. Galbreath’s] case at trial.” However, he fails to articulate how the outcome would have been different absent this testimony by his father. See Sanchez v. State, 2011 WY 77, ¶ 42, 253 P.3d 136, 148 (Wyo. 2011) (finding Sanchez’s “bald assertion that prejudice occurred” insufficient to demonstrate prejudice). [¶11] The record shows that Gary Galbreath made statements to the police that were inconsistent with his trial testimony. The prosecution made good use of these inconsistencies by impeaching Gary Galbreath on the stand. Moreover, the prosecution pointed out the natural instinct of parents to protect their children: Q. Now, Gary, you’re [Mr. Galbreath’s] father, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you don’t want to say anything that’s going to hurt your son at all; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. The damage to Gary Galbreath’s credibility had already been accomplished even before being questioned about medications. Considering Gary Galbreath’s inconsistent statements and his relationship to Mr. Galbreath, it is unlikely that his testimony regarding his medication significantly reduced his credibility with the jury.