Opinion ID: 2516066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence of the Victim's Alleged Use of and Withdrawal from Methamphetamine

Text: [¶ 38] Mr. Skinner contends the court erred in sustaining an objection at trial on the basis of relevancy. The defense counsel asked the victim the specific question: Do you use methamphetamine? This inquiry followed the questioning of the victim as to whether she was an alcoholic and whether she was suffering withdrawal, to which she responded in the affirmative. At trial, the defense counsel responded to the prosecutor's objection to relevancy and stated: Your honor, the relevance is that if she is going through all kinds of withdrawal and having pressure put on her by the State, her choices in deciding to testify for the State are very limited. She has been through everything possible by the State. And if she is withdrawing from methamphetamine, I think everybody in the legal community here knows that withdrawal from methamphetamine is severe. The court sustained the objection. On appeal, Mr. Skinner argues the victim's methamphetamine use and possible withdrawal are relevant to her credibility and competency as a witness. Particularly, Mr. Skinner claims, If [the victim] was in drug withdrawal, it is extremely likely that she would say anything in order to get out of jail. The burden is on the defendant to establish the trial court's evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. Trujillo, 2 P.3d at 571. [¶ 39] Mr. Skinner did not make an offer of proof at trial stating whether the victim actually used methamphetamine; was suffering from methamphetamine withdrawal; and, if so, to what extent it would affect the accuracy of her testimony. In the context of evidentiary rulings at trial, this court has long adhered to the doctrine that a sufficient offer of proof is necessary so that we are adequately apprised of the nature of the excluded testimony. Hermreck v. State, 956 P.2d 335, 338 (Wyo.1998); see also Sidwell v. State, 964 P.2d 416, 420 (Wyo.1998). This requirement enables the trial court to be fully advised in the exercise of its discretion regarding the admission of evidence and allows the reviewing court to determine if prejudicial error resulted from the exclusion of the proffered testimony. Assertions and speculation in an appellate brief in no way take the place of an explicit offer of proof: We suggest there is only one prudent way for an offer of proof to be made a[t] trial. The attorney who seeks to offer evidence, which has been refused or to which an objection has been upheld, should take the initiative. The offer of proof should then take the form of counsel's eliciting the proposed testimony directly from the witness, or entering the tangible evidence in the record, all outside of the hearing of the jury. Hermreck, 956 P.2d at 338 (quoting Rudolph v. State, 829 P.2d 269, 275 (Wyo.1992)). We conclude our appellate review was impeded due to the absence of an offer of proof and a clear indication in the record as to what the victim's testimony would have revealed. Consequently, Mr. Skinner failed to establish the trial court abused its discretion.