Opinion ID: 2637139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: DCI Agent Justin Mathson's testimony

Text: [¶12] DCI Agent Justin Mathson testified during the prosecution's case-in-chief. On direct examination, the DCI agent described his brother's arrival at Mr. Lawrence's residence and subsequently hearing Mr. Lawrence identify DCI Agent Porter over the wire's radio transmission. He described how the DCI agents returned to the station after Ms. Marchant left the residence, leaving Mr. Lawrence and his residence unobserved for approximately thirty minutes. DCI Agent Mathson also testified that when he returned to Mr. Lawrence's residence, he observed Mr. Lawrence returning to the residence in his vehicle, and that Mr. Lawrence remained inside the residence for approximately thirty to forty-five minutes before leaving in his vehicle again. DCI Agent Mathson further testified the decision to arrest Mr. Lawrence was made at that time. On cross-examination, Mr. Lawrence's counsel made the following inquiry: Q: As far as your observations in this case, you said that you saw your brother leave Mr. Lawrence's residence with a female? A: Correct. Q: Did you know where Jeff was living at the time? A: I did. Q: Did anybody  did you do anything to try and follow up, like go interview him or have somebody else interview him at his place, go check at his place before the arrest of Mr. Lawrence? A: Not that day, no. Q: Any discussions with anybody about who's going to go follow up on these people and see what they saw, anything like that? A: Later on, yes. Q: Anything done  any discussions like that before the arrest of Mr. Lawrence? A: Not that I can recall. There might have been some talk but I can't recall if there was or not. Q: Okay. Do you know who that female was with Jeff? A: I do. Q: Who's that? A: I think her name is Rebecca Pauly. Q: Okay. Are you  do you talk to Jeff? I mean, are you friends with him? A: We do not communicate or I haven't seen him for several months. Q: Yeah. Are there bad feelings between you two? A: I just don't agree with his life-style, so I just choose not to associate with him. Q: He's working in the oil fields? A: He is. (Emphasis added.) The remainder of cross-examination focused on the gap in time when Mr. Lawrence's residence was not under surveillance, the decision to arrest, and the circumstances of the arrest. [¶13] On redirect, the prosecutor asked DCI Agent Mathson to explain the answer defense counsel had elicited when asking about his relationship with his brother: Q: What do you mean by you don't agree with Jeff's life-style? A: From  well, I'm just assuming the places he hangs around, the places he goes, I'm assuming that he uses drugs. And he still lives at home with family members. That kind of does not set well with me, either, so . . . . (Emphasis added.) Because Mr. Lawrence's trial counsel did not object to the life-style question and answer, this Court reviews his appellate error contention for plain error. The parties agree the record clearly shows the testimony to which Mr. Lawrence now objects. This Court has carefully read Mr. Lawrence's appellate brief to identify the clear and unequivocal rule of evidence he claims was violated when this testimony was admitted. At one point in his brief, after briefly recounting the testimonies of DCI Agent Mathson, Rebecca Pauly, and Jeff Mathson of which he complains, he asserts, first, that all the above evidence was improper because it was irrelevant and under W.R.E. 402 irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, and second, that these examinations by the prosecutor constituted introduction of improper character evidence inadmissible under W.R.E. 608(b) (specific instances of conduct) and Blumhagen v. State, 11 P.3d 889 (Wyo. 2000). At another point in his brief when specifically addressing only DCI Agent Mathson's testimony that he assumes his brother uses drugs, Mr. Lawrence again identifies W.R.E. 608(b) and Blumhagen. The extent of his cogent argument on that basis is [t]hat rule was violated when the trial court allowed Justin Mathson to put forth his opinion that his brother uses `drugs.' At neither point in his brief does Mr. Lawrence quote the text of W.R.E. 608(b) and explain its application to DCI Agent Mathson's utterance. Equally missing is an explanation of the application of Blumhagen to DCI Agent Mathson's utterance. The extent of Mr. Lawrence's irrelevance argument about that utterance is simply that it was not relevant to proving whether Mr. Lawrence attempted to deliver a controlled substance to Ms. Merchant. [¶14] Responding to Mr. Lawrence's complaint about DCI Agent Mathson's utterance, the State counters that Mr. Lawrence's trial counsel opened the door to the prosecutor's redirect question asking the witness to explain his disagreement with his brother's lifestyle which was revealed by defense counsel's earlier cross-examination. The State cites White v. State, 2003 WY 163, ¶ 11, 80 P.3d 642, 648 (Wyo. 2003): This Court has recognized that a defendant may open the door to otherwise inadmissible testimony when he inquires about a particular subject, including evidence of prior criminal misconduct. Gayler v. State, 957 P.2d 855, 858 (Wyo. 1998); see also Espinoza v. State, 969 P.2d 542, 546 (Wyo. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 818, 120 S. Ct. 59, 145 L.Ed.2d 52 (1999). When the defendant initiates a line of questioning, the prosecutor is entitled to make a permissible inquiry without crossing into prosecutorial overkill. Espinoza, 696 P.2d at 546. It is usually a basic function of redirect examination to allow a witness to explain his testimony elicited on cross-examination. . . . The opening of the door concept, however, reaches further and is an extension of that familiar rule. Succinctly stated, the opening the door rule is that a party who in some way permits the trial judge to let down the gates to a field of inquiry that is not competent but relevant cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening within its scope. Sanville v. State, 593 P.2d 1340, 1344 (Wyo. 1979) This Court agrees with the State that this was a permissible question for redirect in the circumstances. The prosecutor limited his inquiry to that single question, thus the prosecutor's redirect examination did not cross the line between permissible inquiry and prosecutorial overkill. White, ¶ 12, 80 P.3d at 648-49. Once Mr. Lawrence's counsel opened the door to this line of questioning, he could not legitimately complain when the prosecutor went through it and asked the witness to clarify his cross-examination testimony. [¶15] Mr. Lawrence's argument alleging that DCI Agent Mathson's utterance constituted improper character evidence under W.R.E. 608(b) and Blumhagen lacks cogency. He fails to quote the text of the rule of evidence and fails to provide legal analysis of either the rule or the Blumhagen holding and their application to the DCI agent's utterance. We decline to review this ground without cogent argument. Marshall v. State, 2005 WY 164, ¶ 12, 125 P.3d 269, 274 (Wyo. 2005).