Court Opinion

ID: 9797135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:14:15.144762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:46.813468
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
dissenting.
[126] I concur with the majority in that escape is a general intent crime. I cannot agree, however, with the majority's decision to reverse Seymore's conviction on the basis that the jury should have been instructed to find whether or not the failure of Seymore to return to FCS at the required time was voluntary because the issue was not raised by him. It is the responsibility of an appealing party to clearly identify and define the issues for this Court's review. "It is not the function of this court to frame appellant's argument or draw his issues for him." Saldana v. State, 846 P.2d 604, 622 (Wyo.1993) (Golden, J., concurring) (quoting Hance v. Straatsma, T2l P.2d 575, 577-78 (Wyo.1986)); see also Ultra Resources, Inc. v. McMurry Emergy Company, 2004 WY 121, ¶ 8, 99 P.3d 959, 962 (Wyo.2004) ("[This court will not frame the issues for the litigants and will not consider issues not raised by them and not supported by cogent argument and authoritative citation.") (quoting State v. Campbell County School District, 2001 WY 90, ¶ 35, 32 P.3d 325, 333 (Wyo.2001)); and W.R.AP. 7.01(f) (requiring appellant to set forth an argument with respect to the issues presented for review). Seymore's contention of error was predicated on a claim that the district court erred by not instructing the jury that escape was a specific intent crime. No argument regarding voluntariness appears in Seymore's brief. I would find that any claim of error on this point was waived by his failure to clearly identify the issue and support it with cogent argument and citation to pertinent authority.
[127] I must also respectfully disagree with the majority's analysis of the prosecuto-rial misconduct issue. Even assuming that the incidents identified in paragraph 21 of the majority opinion constituted misconduct, I cannot agree that Seymore has met his burden of establishing prejudice. The majority's conclusion as to the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's improper comments is based, at least in part, on its determination that the jury was not properly instructed. See 122. Since that error was waived, the instructions as given to the jury are the law *412of the case and the evidence in the record overwhelmingly supports the jury's verdict. Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 14, 55 P.3d 1259, 1264 (Wyo.2002) ("[Flailure to object to instructions at trial before the jury begins its deliberations operates to preclude appellate review of the instructions, which become the law of the case unless a plain or fundamental error can be shown to prevail."). Accordingly, I would hold that the prosecutor's comments, taken individually or collectively, did not prejudice appellant.
[128] I understand and fully sympathize with the majority's frustration with the actions of some of the prosecutors in this state and their seeming disregard of our repeated admonitions regarding proper argument and questioning. Nevertheless, each case must be examined on its own merits. In this case, I would not find prejudice and would affirm Seymore's conviction and sentence.