Opinion ID: 2378953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the presentation of evidence of cocaine use two days prior to the incident violate W.R.E. 404(b)?

Text: [¶ 20] In his fourth issue, Mr. Breazeale argues that evidence of his prior use of cocaine was evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts, and that the district court should have excluded this evidence pursuant to W.R.E. 404(b). A trial court's decision on the admissibility of evidence is entitled to considerable deference, and will not be reversed on appeal unless the appellant demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion. Leyva v. State, 2007 WY 136, ¶ 17, 165 P.3d 446, 452 (Wyo.2007). [¶ 21] Prior to trial, Mr. Breazeale filed a request for notice of the prosecution's intent to introduce evidence of prior bad acts. The prosecution disclosed that it was prepared to offer evidence that: (1) at the hospital immediately after the wreck, Mr. Breazeale had tested positive for cocaine metabolites; (2) a friend had used drugs along with Mr. Breazeale on several prior occasions, and the two had used cocaine two days before the wreck; (3) on March 19, 2009, a plastic wrapper with cocaine residue was found in a search of Mr. Breazeale's vehicle; (4) about two months after the wreck, while released on bond for a separate criminal charge, Mr. Breazeale tested positive for cocaine metabolites; and (5) about two years before the wreck, Mr. Breazeale had been stopped for speeding, and tested positive for marijuana, oxycodone, cocaine, and cocaine metabolites. [¶ 22] The district court held a pretrial hearing to consider the admissibility of this evidence. It ruled that most of the evidence offered by the prosecution would be excluded under W.R.E. 404(b) because it served only to show bad character. The district court ruled, however, that the prosecution would be allowed to present evidence of the cocaine metabolites in Mr. Breazeale's blood and urine samples, and that the friend could testify that he and Mr. Breazeale had used cocaine two days before the wreck. The prosecution argued that this evidence was offered to show that Mr. Breazeale was under the influence of drugs ... under the influence of the cocaine metabolites in his blood. The district court observed that if the evidence goes directly to an element of the crime, it is not 404(b). Evidence that Mr. Breazeale used cocaine two days before the wreck was admissible because it was proffered to show that in fact he was under the influence, and so was directly related to the crime. That was a reasonable conclusion, and no abuse of discretion. [¶ 23] Mr. Breazeale contends, however, that at trial the prosecution did not present evidence tying the prior [cocaine] use to the causation of the accident. In other words, Mr. Breazeale claims that the prosecution, despite its argument at the pretrial hearing, failed to show that he was under the influence of cocaine at the time of the wreck. His use of cocaine two days before the wreck was not directly related to the crime, he argues, and so the evidence should have been excluded pursuant to W.R.E. 404(b). [¶ 24] In making a pretrial determination regarding the admissibility of evidence under W.R.E. 404(b), the district court must rely on the prosecution's representations about what the evidence will be. When the actual evidence is presented at trial, however, it may not be exactly as represented in the pretrial hearing. This does not necessarily mean that the prosecution intentionally misrepresented the evidence. Variations could occur, for example, because new evidence is discovered, a witness provides unexpected testimony, or counsel did not fully understand the evidence at the time. When the evidence at trial is not the same as represented by the prosecution during the pretrial hearing, defense counsel has an opportunity to make an appropriate objection. In other words, the district court's pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence under W.R.E. 404(b) does not preclude an objection at trial that the evidence is not as represented earlier, and is not admissible under W.R.E. 404(b). Mr. Breazeale made no such objection during his trial. [¶ 25] Our review of the record, however, reveals no meaningful discrepancy between the evidence as represented during the pretrial hearing and as actually introduced at trial. At the hearing, the prosecution represented that the evidence would show that Mr. Breazeale was under the influence of drugs... under the influence of the cocaine metabolites in his blood. At trial, the prosecution's expert witness admitted that the presence of cocaine metabolites did not mean Mr. Breazeale was under the influence of cocaine at the time. However, she indicated that the use of cocaine two days earlier could still have a direct effect on his physical condition on the day of the wreck. She described three phases of response to the ingestion of cocaine. First is the rush phase, in which the person feels euphoric and exhibits rapid movements and speaking. Next is the run phase, during which the euphoria and rapid movements diminish. Finally there is the crash phase, during which the person becomes very sleepy and tired. The expert testified that a person experiencing the crash phase could have impaired driving abilities due to sleepiness and lowered cognitive functions. Moreover, the active ingredient in canned air acts as an analgesic, and a person in the crash phase could pass out after inhaling canned air. The expert further testified that if Mr. Breazeale had used cocaine two days before the wreck, he could have been experiencing the crash phase just prior to the wreck. W.R.E. 404(b) prohibits evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It does not prohibit evidence of a defendant's physical condition at the time of the alleged crime. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence at trial.