Opinion ID: 2498898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pre-Charging Delay

Text: [¶ 15] In her first issue, Ms. Remmick claims that the delay in bringing charges against her resulted in an infringement of her due process rights. Because this is a claim involving constitutional rights, our review of the district court's decision is de novo. Bush v. State, 2008 WY 108, ¶ 72, 193 P.3d 203, 221 (Wyo.2008). [¶ 16] In order to prevail on her claim, Ms. Remmick bears the burden of proving both an intentional delay by the state to gain a tactical advantage over the accused and actual prejudice resulting from that delay. Id., ¶ 73, 193 P.3d at 221; Vernier v. State, 909 P.2d 1344, 1348 (Wyo.1996). As we previously explained: Wyoming has no statute of limitations for criminal offenses, and prosecution for such offenses may be commenced at any time during the life of the offender. Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020, 1026, 65 A.L.R.4th 1011 (Wyo.1986). However, when a delay in bringing charges results in prejudice to a defendant, due process considerations may arise. Id. at 1027; United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2048, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). In order to require dismissal of a charge, it is necessary that a preindictment delay cause substantial prejudice to [appellant's] rights to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused. Story, 721 P.2d at 1027, quoting from United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324, 92 S.Ct. 455, 465, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). Phillips v. State, 835 P.2d 1062, 1069 (Wyo. 1992). [¶ 17] To show prejudice, an appellant must demonstrate the loss of a witness, exhibit or other evidence, the presence of which would probably bring a different result. Id., 835 P.2d at 1069. We have made it clear that only actual prejudice, not possible prejudice, will suffice to establish that a delay in prosecution resulted in a due process violation. Ms. Remmick has failed to satisfy that burden. [¶ 18] Ms. Remmick bases her claim of prejudice on the fact that Ms. Jacobsen was not available to help Ms. Remmick prepare for trial. She argues that Ms. Jacobsen's participation was crucial because of her knowledge of the documents and transactions on which the charges were based. She also bases her claim on the fact that Ms. Jacobsen was unavailable to testify in Ms. Remmick's defense. [¶ 19] We note initially that Ms. Remmick filed her motion to dismiss on March 3, 2010. After the motion was denied, Ms. Remmick requested and received a continuance, allowing her additional time to prepare for trial. Trial was not held until late August, 2010. She did not, and does not, claim that she needed additional time to prepare for trial in light of Ms. Jacobsen's absence. Although the State conceded that it did not know Ms. Jacobsen's whereabouts, Ms. Remmick never stated in her motion or at the hearing that she was unable to contact Ms. Jacobsen. In fact, there are indications that some family members were in contact with Ms. Jacobsen. During the motion hearing, the prosecution advised the court: For the court's information Pete Deliramich, her husband, now exhusband, was interviewed shortly after Ms. Jacobsen fled and admitted that he was in telephonic contact with her and declined to assist law enforcement in trying to track her down. Ms. Remmick never advised the court of any attempts she made to locate Ms. Jacobsen, and never sought a continuance for the purpose of trying to locate her mother and obtain her testimony or assistance in preparing her defense. [¶ 20] Additionally, Ms. Remmick has not established that Ms. Jacobsen would have testified if available. We note that Ms. Jacobsen did not testify at her own trial, and had not yet been sentenced in that case. Further, Ms. Remmick does not specify how Ms. Jacobsen's testimony would have led to a different result in this case. Ms. Remmick has failed to identify any document, potential testimony, or other evidence of any kind that Ms. Jacobsen could have offered in her daughter's defense. Because Ms. Remmick has offered no more than speculation that Ms. Jacobsen's participation would have brought about a different result, we are not convinced that Ms. Remmick suffered any actual prejudice due to Ms. Jacobsen's absence. [¶ 21] More significant, however, is Ms. Remmick's failure to prove that the State's delay in prosecuting her was an intentional effort to gain a tactical advantage over her. During the hearing, Ms. Remmick's defense counsel conceded that she could not show what the prosecutor's motive was or prove any malevolent motive on the part of the prosecution. On appeal, she asserts that the timing of the charges itself implies an improper motive. She points to the precipitous filing of charges against [her] days after [her] mother absconded and argues that [t]his timing smacks of vicarious retaliation against mother. [¶ 22] The prosecution, however, provided the district court with an alternative explanation for the delay in prosecuting Ms. Remmick. As set forth previously, the Campbell County Attorney's office deferred its prosecution of Ms. Jacobsen while the federal case was pending. State charges against Ms. Jacobsen were brought three months after she was released from federal custody. According to the State, it chose to prosecute Ms. Jacobsen before Ms. Remmick in order to establish that there was indeed a case upon which to rest subsequent prosecutions, if any. Once Ms. Jacobsen was found guilty on all charges, the prosecution proceeded promptly against Ms. Remmick. [¶ 23] In addition, after Ms. Jacobsen did not appear in court for the jury's verdict, law enforcement executed a warrant to search her house, and found additional evidence that apparently assisted in the prosecution of Ms. Remmick. Charges were filed against Ms. Remmick the day after this search warrant was executed. There is no indication that the delay in bringing charges was motivated by an intentional effort to gain tactical advantage over Ms. Remmick. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Ms. Remmick's motion to dismiss the charges.