Court Opinion

ID: 9633319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:42:47.862504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:33.041654
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially (in which GOLDEN, J. joins).
I agree the Ross conviction should be affirmed, and I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. Consistently with my special concurring opinion in Urrutia v. State, 924 P.2d 965 (Wyo.1996), I would hold that the failure to object is fatal to an assertion on appeal that trial error occurred in connection with the admission into evidence of the guilty plea of Ross’ wife.
In the concurring opinion in Urrutia, I said:
The conclusion of the majority opinion is that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated, but that Urrutia failed to establish material prejudice. I quote from Kwallek, 596 P.2d at 1376:
As a general proposition, courts have' found that prejudice results where the accused made timely objection5 and has requested curative action by the trial court which refused or failed to eliminate the disclosure.
I believe the Kwallek rule is clear in requiring a timely objection to the disclosure of a guilty plea by another person who has been charged with an offense arising out of the same circumstances. It is my rationalization of Kwallek that, in the absence of an objection by the defendant, there is no error. Hence, under the plain error doctrine, no clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated. (Emphasis in the original.) If Kwallek is not as clear as I read it, it is at best equivocal, and for that reason the rule of the case does not meet the plain error requirement.
The reason, as I see it, why an objection is required to such a disclosure is that the circumstances of the trial are themselves inherently equivocal. When the prosecution seeks to introduce this evidence to blunt the effect of its being introduced on cross-examination, the defendant may well prefer that it come in at that point. It may be preferable as a matter of tactics to cross-examine about the details of the conviction and why the witness was able to make a deal with the prosecution.
Urrutia, 924 P.2d at 971 (Thomas, J., concurring specially) (emphasis added.)
This ease serves as a crystal illustration of the principle I was endeavoring to articulate in Urrutia. I quote from the majority opinion:
The question remains, however, of whether Ross was truly prejudiced by the State’s introduction of his wife’s guilty plea when that guilty plea was the very lynchpin of his defense.
Ross’ trial strategy was first articulated during voir dire when his counsel asked a prospective juror: “Did you read in the paper that both the husband and the wife were accused of this [child abuse]?” During opening statement, counsel for Ross promised to create doubt as to whether it was Ross or his wife who actually abused their son. Ross’ theory was that Mrs. Ross had been the “real abuser,” but had engineered a plea agreement with the prosecutor in return for her testimony implicating Ross. Central to such a theory was elucidation of Mrs. Ross’ plea bargain, through her testimony. * * *
Given Ross’ theory of the case, it is apparent that what truly would have prejudiced his defense would have been a refusal on the part of the State to talk about his wife’s conviction.
*973I submit that this discussion demonstrates the wisdom found in footnote 5 of the opinion in Kwallek v. State, 596 P.2d 1372 (Wyo.1979), which the majority of the Court continues to ignore. It appears that it may be regarded as dictum, and that is true because the material facts in Kwallek encompassed an objection. The footnote stands, however, as a clear articulation of the rule that would apply in the absence of objection. Given the dynamics specifically disclosed in this case, but present by implication in every instance in which no objection is voiced to a guilty plea by another person charged with an offense arising out of the same circumstances, we should not recognize a claim of plain error because of the admission of such evidence. If any error is to be considered under such circumstances it would have to relate to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

. It is well established that the accused must register timely objection to the disclosure. State v. Marshall and Brown-Sidorowicz, P.A., 2 Kan.App.2d 182, 577 P.2d 803, 817, and cases cited therein (1978).