Opinion ID: 1454677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues presented by this appeal

Text: Without question, appellant was involved in the transaction from which the death intentionally resulted to a degree that the resulting life sentence is not necessarily a shock to any judicial conscience. It is, however, what occurred at trial, which by majority opinion may cause future damage to Wyoming law, that causes my present significant concern. Those seeds now planted for future noxious growth include in adjudicatory terms: 1. Prosecution was pursued on both a felony murder and premeditated murder basis, but the verdict form neither permitted nor required the jury to determine which of either was proved since the decisive crime of convicted guilt could not be identified by the jury on the submitted verdict form. 2. Submission of the case on a first degree felony murder charge based on robbery was improper after the trial court determined there was insufficient evidence to submit robbery as a separate criminal charge. 3. Requiring appellant to testify and admit to the offense in violation of his right against self-incrimination as a court ordered predicate to establish a foundation to allow the psychologist to testify as a matter of foundation cannot possibly be considered in this case to be harmless error under Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, reh'g denied 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1283, 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967). This majority ignores the Chapman test for harmless constitutional error which requires proof by the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828.