Opinion ID: 2632147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: Appellant presents the following issues for review: 1. Did the State's offer, and the admission of, two witnesses' testimony that they were convicted of offenses arising out of the circumstances leading to Appellant's trial, and the State's repeated argument concerning those convictions, violate Appellant's right to have a trial on its own merits, and did such testimony constitute plain error? 2. Did Appellant's trial counsel's failure to object to the above testimony and the prosecution's repeated references to accomplices constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? 3. Did the prosecution's argument concerning the severance of the charge of interference with a police officer constitute prosecutorial misconduct, in that the prosecution represented to the trial court that it would be offering evidence of incriminating statements that could not be separated from the incident of interference, and then no such evidence was offered? 4. Did the trial court err in admitting testimony of a threat allegedly made by Appellant to a witness outside the courtroom? 5. Did the prosecution's statements in closing arguments concerning the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence constitute prosecutorial misconduct which resulted in plain error? 6. Did the plea bargains and subsequent testimony of witnesses Jamie Scheschi and Aaron Morran violate 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(2) and W.S. 6-5-102(a)(ii), and result in reversible error? Appellee phrases the issues as follows: I. Whether plea agreements with two witnesses who testified against Appellant require reversal of Appellant's conviction? II. Whether plain error was committed when two witnesses testified they were convicted of offenses arising out of the same circumstances which led to Appellant's trial? III. Whether statements made by the prosecutor deprived Appellant of a fair trial? IV. Whether Appellant received effective assistance of counsel? V. Whether the trial court erred when it admitted testimony by a witness whom Appellant had threatened outside the courtroom?