Court Opinion

ID: 9761310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:38:18.827925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:22.019626
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Justice,
specially concurring.
[T 24] I concur in the result of the majority opinion out of respect for the doctrine of stare decisis. The majority has faithfully adhered to our precedent. I write separately because this case exemplifies the fact that our admonitions to prosecutors and law enforcement officials too often fall on deaf ears. It is hard to believe that, with precedent being so clear, a eriminal trial in Wyoming could include both the investigating officer giving his opinion that the victim's interview "was very believable to me," and that same officer and the prosecutor in tandem telling the jury that the defendant did not take a "lie detector test."
¶25] The direct fault lies with the prosecutors. The indirect fault lies with the harmless error rule. So long as the system requires an appellant to prove that he or she was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct, some prosecutors will continue to act as they do. j