Court Opinion

ID: 9528490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:35.989429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:56.054740
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I, too, must dissent from the result reached by the majority opinion. For reasons that for us can only be a matter of conjecture, Herdt, through his counsel, agreed that he had not introduced evidence that would raise the issue of consent in his case-in-chief. That action was taken to prevent the prosecution from introducing evidence of prior bad acts in its rebuttal to the defendant’s case-in-chief. Apparently, those prior bad acts would have been so devastating to Herdt’s defense that the court’s restriction upon any argument of the issue of consent was acceptable to counsel and to Herdt. To adopt a simile of the majority, when the evidentiary ruling was made the prosecution wound up with one hand tied behind its back.
The case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. I assume it is clear to all that the price to Herdt of his victory is that the evidence of the prior bad acts will be received. Tennant v. State, 786 P.2d 339 (Wyo.1990). I trust that Herdt has not gained a Pyrrhic victory. It indeed would be ironic if, faced with that prospect, Herdt decided to plead guilty.
I would affirm the judgment and sentence in this case.