Court Opinion

ID: 9601793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:49:44.176835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:13.317246
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The Honorable Leonard McEwan, Judge of the Fourth Judicial District and trial judge in the above-captioned case, having filed a petition for rehearing, and
The court having considered the petition, and being of the opinion that the district court judge, under the circumstances of this case, has no standing to file a petition for rehearing under Rule 8, W.R.A.P., or by any other authority;
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, denied.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING BY COUNTY AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
In that the Attorney General of the ■ State of Wyoming shall represent the State in all criminal cases in this Court, § 9-2-505(a), W.S. 1977, a county and prosecuting attorney has no standing to do so, it is
ORDERED that the Application for Rehearing by Thomas C. Wilson, County and Prosecuting Attorney, Sheridan County. Wyoming, be and is denied.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The State of Wyoming, by and through the Attorney General for Wyoming, has filed a petition for rehearing that alleges that the opinion handed down herein on March 12, 1979, contains several misstate*1380ments of fact and that the court erred in finding prejudice as a result of allowing a witness to testify that he had pleaded guilty to a charge arising out of the same transaction for which the defendant was on trial.
The State claims that the following statement on page 1374 of the opinion is incorrect:
“Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine . .
Since this statement is allegedly incorrect, the State further asserts that it was erroneous for the court to state, on page 1376 of the opinion, that
“the defense twice called the court’s attention to the impropriety of admitting testimony concerning witness McKenzie’s plea of guilty. The objections were timely made and the court was fully apprised of the defendant’s position . .
A review of the record discloses that the defendant orally presented his motion in limine at 8:57 a.m. (R.125), the trial commenced at 9:00 a.m., and that after the jury was selected, but before any testimony was taken, the court took a thirty-minute recess with the trial reconvening at 10:32 a.m. (R.68). The defendant’s motion was filed and the trial judge actually noted receipt of the motion at 10:23 a.m. (R.20 and 125). During the direct examination of witness McKenzie — who was the first witness to testify for the prosecution — defense counsel objected to the relevancy of the question in controversy and, in the process, called the attention to defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony with respect to this matter (R.75).
While the statement that the motion was filed prior to trial was incorrect, and is hereby corrected, the misstatement was of no substantive consequence whatever since the trial judge was still adequately apprised of the defendant’s position upon the three' occasions above referred to, and it was error for him not to have sustained the defendant’s objections for reasons which are fully explained in our opinion herein.
All other matters raised in the petition for rehearing were fully considered and disposed of in the disposition of this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, denied.