Opinion ID: 1175474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Irrelevant Testimony

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court admitted a great deal of irrelevant evidence in violation of Rule 402, W.R.E. He claims that the court should not have permitted: (1) Judi Cashel, one of the investigators, to describe how the victims cried when she interviewed them; (2) Doctor Florey to describe his own examination table or his policy of having a nurse present during pelvic examinations; (3) Mrs. Harrison to explain that appellant's examination room door could be locked from the inside; and (4) Testimony from several victims that they reported the sexual assaults to the medical board. All of this evidence was relevant and admissible because it tended to prove facts of consequence. Rule 401, W.R.E. The emotional distress of the victims during their interviews and their reports to the medical board enhanced their credibility, a key issue in the trial. Doctor Florey's examination table testimony was an essential foundation for his opinion that sexual intercourse could be performed on appellant's table. And Dr. Florey's policy of having a nurse present, together with Mrs. Harrison's testimony that she told appellant to get a nurse in the examination room, tended to show that appellant planned the sexual assaults. The locking door was relevant because it showed that appellant had the opportunity to perpetrate the assaults without fear of detection by his office staff or his wife who often worked in the office. We agree with appellant that this evidence was prejudicial to his case. All evidence which proves appellant's guilt might be said to be prejudicial, but the key is whether it unfairly prejudiced him. Hopkinson v. State, Wyo., 632 P.2d 79, 126 (1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982); Rule 403, W.R.E. Appellant has not offered cogent argument of unfair prejudice, so we will not reach that issue. Eaton v. State, Wyo., 660 P.2d 803, 805 (1983).