Opinion ID: 2629713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 3] Beaugureau provides this statement of the issues: I. Was there insufficient evidence to convict Appellant of child abuse of the alleged victim, [BC]? II. Was there insufficient evidence to convict Appellant of child abuse of the alleged victim, [SD] and did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing the late amendment of the information with regard to the allegation of child abuse of SD? III. Was Appellant denied due process of law when an agent of the State, a DFS [3] employee, refused to allow Appellant's trial counsel to interview the alleged victim, [BC], particularly in view of the fact that the prosecutor was allowed to speak with [BC] prior to trial? IV. Did the trial court err in refusing to examine [BC's] competency prior to the substance of his testimony? V. Should this Court reverse its position articulated in Dike v. State, 990 P.2d 1012 (Wyo.1999), wherein the Court reaffirmed that when the jury is presented with contradictory testimony, counsel is allowed to communicate the reasonable inference that one of the witnesses is lying? [sic] Additionally, did the prosecutor commit prosecutorial misconduct by using contradictions in the testimony to improperly question Appellant? VI. Did the trial court err in not holding a hearing or inquiry to determine if appellant needed substitute counsel? The State rephrases the issues in these words: I. Was there sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of child abuse as to BC? II. Was there sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of child abuse as to SD, and did the district court abuse its discretion in allowing the State to amend the information with regard to the dates when the child abuse was committed? III. Was Appellant denied due process of law when the Department of Family Services refused to allow Appellant's counsel to interview victim BC prior to trial? IV. Did the district court err in refusing to conduct a further competency hearing regarding BC? V. Did the district court apply the correct rule of law to the facts in the case, should this Court overrule Dike v. State , and did the prosecutor commit misconduct by using contradictions in the testimony during questioning of Appellant? VI. Did the district court err in not holding a hearing or inquiry to determine if Appellant needed substitute counsel?