Opinion ID: 2461900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct by violating discovery orders?

Text: [¶ 46] Although delineated as a separate issue, this issue piggybacks on the issues earlier discussed in this opinion by alleging that prosecutorial [m]isconduct was implicit and explicit in each of the allegations in the new trial motion. Specifically, citing State v. Naple, 2006 WY 125, ¶ 12, 143 P.3d 358, 361-62 (Wyo.2006), the appellant contends that [f]ailure to comply with a discovery order is generally recognized as misconduct. Where there has been an objection below, we review claims of prosecutorial misconduct for harmless error; where there has not been an objection below, we review for plain error. Harris v. State, 2008 WY 23, ¶¶ 12-14, 177 P.3d 1166, 1170-71 (Wyo.2008). In either case, our focus is on the prejudice suffered by the defendant. Smith v. State, 2009 WY 2, ¶ 26, 199 P.3d 1052, 1059 (Wyo.2009). We consider the entire record, and reversal based upon the alleged violation of a discovery order is appropriate only where substantial prejudice has been shown. Id.; Lindsey v. State, 725 P.2d 649, 656-57 (Wyo.1986). [¶ 47] Once again, we will summarily affirm the district court in regard to this issue. The appellant presents nothing on appeal beyond that which we have already discussed in this opinion. We have not been shown that the appellant was prejudiced by any of the prosecutor's conduct described above, no less prejudiced to the substantial extent that would require reversal. Outrage and hyperbole do not substitute for evidence and cogent argument.