Court Opinion

ID: 9782457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:36:14.776739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:00.363539
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[181] I respectfully dissent. I would reverse because the State's community safety argument in this case is virtually indistinguishable from the State's community safety argument that we found reversible in Strange v. State, 2008 WY 132, ¶¶ 6-9, 195 P.3d 1041, 1043-47 (Wyo.2008). After introducing evidence of rampant methamphetamine abuse within the community, the State argued in closing that:
.... [Mr. Moxley] contributed to the problem that Special Agent Bisceglia told you was all over the place in this town. But we have taken care of Mr. Moxley. He's been in jail. He told you that. -
And now we got [sic] to take care of somebody else, because methamphetamine is so bad, so prevalent here in Rawlins. ...
That is nothing more nor less than a plea to the jury to convict the appellant because of a community methamphetamine problem, rather than a plea to convict him because he is guilty of the particular crime charged. Such a clear violation of our rule of law cannot be saved because of its context-that being the attempt to give Mr. Moxley some eredibility-because it was not necessary in that context and it.added nothing to the context.