Opinion ID: 2330386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue 3: Bill of particulars

Text: [¶ 38] Soon after Mr. Counts was charged and arraigned, he filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars. The State provided some information in response, but not everything that Mr. Counts sought. At a pretrial hearing, the district court required the State to provide certain additional information, but denied Mr. Counts' motion in other respects. Mr. Counts challenges that ruling on appeal. [¶ 39] This is an issue we review de novo. An accused has a constitutional right to notice of the charges against him to allow him a fair opportunity to defend against the charges. United States Constitution, Sixth Amendment; Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10. See also, W.R.Cr.P. 3; Derksen v. State, 845 P.2d 1383, 1388-89 (Wyo.1993). Because the right to notice of criminal charges is of constitutional magnitude and the determination on the adequacy of the notice is a question of law, we review the issue de novo. See, e.g., Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115, ¶ 7, 98 P.3d 857, 862 (Wyo. 2004). Heywood v. State, 2009 WY 70, ¶ 4, 208 P.3d 71, 72 (Wyo.2009), quoting Barker v. State, 2006 WY 104, ¶ 14, 141 P.3d 106, 112 (Wyo. 2006). [¶ 40] In his motion, Mr. Counts sought the following information: With respect to Count III, the defendant is charged with kidnapping and alleges both confinement and removal. Again, the defense respectfully requests that the State be required to inform the Court and defense if it is proceeding on both theories and if so, where was the alleged victim removed from and/or confined. Further, the State should also be required to inform the Court and the Defense of the facts to support the intent to inflict bodily injury and/or what acts constituted the alleged terrorization. The State responded that it alleged the victim was both removed and confined. The State declined to provide the other information sought by Mr. Counts, contending that it was not required to disclose factual theories as to what constitutes confinement, removal, terrorizing, or inflicting bodily injury. The district court generally upheld the State's position. [¶ 41] The function of a bill of particulars is `to make more specific the general allegations in the information to enable the defendant to prepare his defense and avoid being surprised at the trial.' Heywood, ¶ 5, 208 P.3d at 72, quoting Booth v. State, 517 P.2d 1034, 1036 (Wyo.1974). See also Charles A. Wright and Andrew D. Leipold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 130, at 656 (4th ed.2008). On appeal, Mr. Counts claims that the district court erred in not requiring the State to disclose the location from which the victim was removed or in which she was confined. However, the record demonstrates that the State's failure to specify the location did not cause any confusion or surprise. During the hearing, defense counsel conceded that she already knew this information: I understand the theory under which they are proceeding, that she's removed from outside by a truck and then taken in this home where I assume the State will allege she's confined. The State's failure to specify the location in a bill of particulars did not hinder Mr. Counts in the preparation of his defense. [¶ 42] Mr. Counts also argues that the State should have supplied the facts to support the intent to inflict bodily injury and/or what acts constituted the alleged terrorization. While we have recognized that a bill of particulars is designed to make the general allegations of the charging documents more specific, we have also explained that a bill of particulars is inappropriate for obtaining evidence, facts, theories, and strategies. Jansen v. State, 892 P.2d 1131, 1141 (Wyo.1995). See also Wright & Leipold, supra, at 668-69 (Many courts have said that a bill of particulars may not call for evidentiary matter or a detailed preview of the government's trial evidence.). [¶ 43] In general, the State is not required to provide additional information in a bill of particulars if the charging documents or other disclosures by the State adequately identify the nature of the offense, the place where it is alleged offenses were committed, the period of time covered thereby, as well as the specific statutes which it was claimed appellant violated. Vernier v. State, 909 P.2d 1344, 1352 (Wyo.1996). In Mr. Counts' case, the listed items were fully covered in the Information and its supporting affidavit. The district court did not err in denying Mr. Counts' request for additional factual details.