Court Opinion

ID: 9530735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:03:05.251675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:14.192809
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Appellant James Pearson was refused an eyewitness instruction that the State must prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt and the jurors’ deliberations should consciously consider both the capacity and opportunity of the prosecutor’s sole eyewitness to observe the perpetrator. The nature of the injustice is magnified by the character of the evidence of any guilt, the minimal proof provided and the progression of unfavorable trial events with which Pearson was faced.
I dissent because I believe the due process component of the Wyoming Constitution requires a Telfaire kind of instruction be given when eyewitness testimony is a critical component of the prosecution’s case. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (1972). See Thomas v. State, 784 P.2d 237 (Wyo.1989), Urbigkit, J., specially concurring. Pearson’s theory of defense rested on the supposition that the prosecutor's eyewitness was mistaken. See Oien v. State, 797 P.2d 544 (Wyo.1990) and Thom v. State, 792 P.2d 192 (Wyo.1990). I would adopt the reasoning and position taken by numerous courts that encourage such instruction. See United States v. Moore, 786 F.2d 1308, 1313, reh’g denied 791 F.2d 928 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1231-32 (3rd Cir.1985); State v. Chappie, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208, 1220-24 (1983); People v. McDonald, 37 Cal.3d 351, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709, 726-27 (1984); and State v. Alger, 115 Idaho 42, 764 P.2d 119, 127-28 (1988). The Idaho court, seeking “to promote justice through a flexible approach to truth-seeking”, Alger, 764 P.2d at 126, argues that the emerging role for empirical research is to “ ‘set a background context for deciding crucial factual issues at trial.’ ” Id. at 128 (quoting Walker and Monahan, Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law, 73 U.Va.L.Rev. 559, 598 (1987)). I agree.
The majority’s reasoning has wedged itself solidly between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In affirming the trial court’s denial of the offered instruction, the majority reasons that the “general instructions *711on reasonable doubt and credibility of witnesses are sufficient to cover” the defendant’s theory of the case, but then turns to declare that the offered instruction is inappropriate since it represents “a skillful effort to induce the trial court to argue the case for the defense through its instructions.” Aside from concerns with the internal inconsistencies to the opinion, I question the claim that the instructions given to the jury were sufficient to cover the offered instruction.
The eyewitness instruction does not define reasonable doubt, but is a step in the right direction toward forcing the jury onto a common ground of what is meant by “beyond a reasonable doubt” before they find the defendant guilty. While the given instructions refer to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the instructions give no guidance about what that means. If the evidence offered by both the prosecution and the defense can tell two reasonable stories, one implying the defendant is innocent and one implying guilt, is there reasonable doubt? If the “circumstances, no matter how strong, can be reasonably reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act,” Mulligan v. State, 513 P.2d 180, 181 (Wyo.1973), is that reasonable doubt? See Blakely v. State, 542 P.2d 857 (Wyo.1975), overruling inconsistent portions of Mulligan. If the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt ” is objective, then a common understanding by the jurors should be secured by telling them what that means. If the standard is subjective, then members of a jury may not actually be unanimous about a defendant’s guilt because they may not have grounded their verdict upon a common understanding of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The offered instructions were designed to assist in the mental calculations about what could cast reasonable doubt on the testimony of the eyewitness. Instruction No. 14 asked the jury to consciously consider how far or close the witness was, how good the lighting conditions were, whether the witness had been exposed to the person in the past, and the length of time available to the witness to observe the person. This is not a skillful effort to induce the trial court to argue the case for the defense. Indeed, if the eyewitness was close, the lighting was good, the witness knew the person in the past, and had sufficient time to observe the person, then this instruction would work more to the benefit of the prosecution than the defendant.
The eyewitness was a bank teller who was roughly forty feet from the car. She testified that it was so sunny that the windshield of the car glared into her eyes. She also testified that she did not see who put the check into the tube. While she said she remembered Pearson, she was unable to remember that she testified at the preliminary hearing that the car was one color while testifying at trial that the car was a different color. She also indicated that “black people can’t be told apart, and they all kind of look the same.” I do not understand why the majority believes a jury should not be given an instruction which cautions them about the capacity and opportunity of an eyewitness to provide a detailed identifying reconstruction of an observed event.
Again, while I do not argue that a Tel-faire kind of instruction or the use of experts on eyewitness testimony is appropriate in all cases, this is one in which the giving of the instruction appears not only justified, but required in the interest of the search for truth in jury decision. Where an eyewitness becomes a “serious ingredient[ ] in the determination of guilt or innocence,” Thomas, 784 P.2d at 241, Urbigkit, J. specially concurring, the defendant should be allowed to give an eyewitness instruction to the jury.
This case presents another problem in utilization of bad acts cross-examination for prosecutorial effect. It is a difficult subject to properly handle in the context of occurrences at trial, appeal preparation and now, presentation to this court. Perhaps when all else fails, resort to the unvarnished facts provide the best refuge for the reviewing jurist. In any event, as related in majority opinion, the prosecutor during cross-examination asked the significant alibi witness, “Isn’t it true you have been an alibi witness for the defendant before?”
*712The question assumed a fact known to the prosecutor in the way it was asked to have been untrue. The prosecutor knew the witness had not previously testified in behalf of Pearson. Actually, the witness had been interviewed by the prosecutor for another occurrence and his information caused the prosecutor to dismiss the then pending charges. The problem in initial trial context was that defense counsel for Pearson did not know of the intentionally misstated nature of the question and this was followed by the witness’ answer of “yes” before the objection could be stated which the witness answered based on an office interview and not as oral testimony as suggested by the question.
The problem with all of this, which is the subject of bad acts evidentiary usage for prosecution, is that appellate counsel first became aware of the character of conduct of the prosecutor just before oral argument in this court on December 5, 1990, and as then followed by reference during oral argument, a motion to supplement the record was filed which stated:
COMES NOW the Appellant, James Pearson, by and through his counsel, Gerald M. Gallivan, and respectfully requests this Court for an Order granting counsel to supplement the record, hold an evidentiary hearing, and brief a new issue. As grounds for this Motion, Appellant states:
1. Oral argument on the appeal in the above captioned matter for forgery was held on December 5, 1990.
2. The day prior to oral argument, counsel became aware of a critical mistake in Issue I of appellant’s brief regarding the improper questioning at trial of Appellant’s alibi witness, * * *.
3. Counsel was not at fault for failure to bring this issue to the Court’s attention earlier.
4. Defendant contends that there are special circumstances surrounding this case as set forth in the supporting memorandum, which the Court needs to consider in granting this Motion.
In the first paragraph of the supporting memorandum to the motion to supplement the record, Pearson’s counsel related:
As this Court is aware, the Appellant’s counsel first learned immediately before oral argument that the record in this case is ambiguous, if not misleading. Specifically, the prosecutor’s objectionable question of the alibi witness concealed the truth that this witness had never testified previously for the defendant. In fact, the prosecutor, * * *, had dismissed unfounded charges after an office conference with defense counsel, * * *, and the witness. This version of the events raises the critical issue of the prosecutor intentionally misleading the jury and would be a separate basis for reversal in this case.
In the absence of this writer at conference, the motion, after resistance from the State without contesting affidavits, was denied by this court. The facts stated in tendered affidavits with the motion were not denied. I consider that a denial at least of the opportunity to supplement the record was in error and furthermore cannot assume for opinion writing an alleged fact I have absolutely no reason to believe is true. Consequently, it is necessary to approach the bad acts/bad reputation of the alibi witness procedural creation in this case, both with consideration of its appropriateness — there was an objection taken, and that the question intentionally assumed a fact that was not true for the purpose of rhetorically attacking the reputation of the witness. On the factual record available, the alibi witness used for Pearson had not been a previous alibi witness for him before.
Bad acts evidentiary prosecution in justification or misuse cannot be separated from the strength of the intrinsic actual evidence of guilt. American courts and particularly Wyoming has gone a long way down the pathway of prosecution by reputation and prejudicial use of extraneously applied intimations of unsavory character. Reincarnated scholars of times past with an understanding of the law that conviction is based on evidence of guilt would be appalled by what Wyoming has reached in *713adaptation and application of W.R.E. 404(a) and (b). See, for example, Gezzi v. State, 780 P.2d 972 (Wyo.1989), Urbigkit, J., dissenting; Pena v. State, 780 P.2d 316 (Wyo. 1989), Urbigkit, J., dissenting; and Brown v. State, 736 P.2d 1110 (Wyo.1987), Urbig-kit, J., dissenting.
Any casual consideration of the sweep of criminal cases now appearing in the reporter systems quickly reveal that the American justice delivery system today tends not to seek guilt so much as punishment for the nature of the defendant’s conduct of his life. Intrinsically included is the supposition “if he or she did not do it this time, there are probably other offenses for which the present guilty defendant was never caught.” Added to this thesis in harmless error and absolution is the further concept that if the evidence of guilt is solid, bad acts evidence does not separately cause conviction.
This is in no regard a strong evidentiary case of guilt. Racial prejudice, intimation of a previous history of bad conduct and a questionable identification supplemented by a thinly disguised mathematically directed racial final argument resulted in conviction. Pearson did not testify by virtue of a prior conviction which, in its nature as a drug case, balanced the further prejudice from race to drug dealing if he chose to explain his side of the story.
Furthermore, it is a little hard to tell what this majority, the prosecution or, for that matter, the jury thought the charged offense actually was. The scenario here provides three sequences. Someone stole a briefcase from a customer’s car at the Cas-per Provident Savings and Loan parking lot. Thereafter, a check was extracted from the briefcase and was completed by the miscreant with included forged signature. Finally, the third action was attempted negotiation at a Casper bank which was unsuccessful.
The criminal information was stated as forgery and, alternatively, transfer. The development of the case and the admission of the prosecution makes clear that in no regard did the State attempt to prove that Pearson was involved in the initial automobile break-in or subsequent forgery. Furthermore, no attempt was alleged as a charge and no transfer was ever completed. The specific statute, W.S. 6-3-602, is a forgery statute. The possession statute, W.S. 6-3-603, is not included as a charged offense in the information.
As noted, there is no evidence in this record that Pearson was involved in sequence one — car theft — or sequence two— check completion as a forgery. The investigating officers according to the record made no observable effort to obtain or provide trial evidence to prove that the forgery was in the handwriting of Pearson. Additionally, no police department effort was made to obtain fingerprints from the briefcase, other papers in the briefcase, the forged check, or the container used at the drive-in bank facility.1
The foregoing provides another problem that relates to the identification, bad acts and mathematical proof which no one heretofore has seemed to consider. There may be an attempt offense to “negotiate” or “transfer”, but not completed crime offense since the check was never accepted by the bank for negotiation and payment. In fact, we have here a non-pleaded “attempt” charge of transfer or negotiation of a known forged instrument supported by, at best, slight real evidence and no specific allegation in information for trial proof. Unfortunately, no one has previously considered this case in this perspective and briefing or review of the “attempt” versus “completed crime” is not addressed nor is any review or definition of the word “transfer” attempted.
The foregoing status of this case provides a perspective of danger from a “mathematical” proof argument. The *714questioned argument related to a tall black and a Chevrolet Camaro Z28 automobile as a matter of one sight identification. We can judicially notice that there are a significant number of blacks in Casper, Wyoming. The 1990 census figures would tell us that. Likewise, it would be appropriate to recognize from local newspaper reports that Pearson, when observed from a distance of approximately forty feet, did not happen to be the only black brought into Casper to play basketball at the local community college.
The trial judge was clearly wrong in overruling the objection taken to the mathematical probability argument of the prosecutor which, in summation, combined with the embedded racial issue substituted guess for certainty in the premises used for probability. See Tribe, Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1329 (1971) and McCormick on Evidence § 210 at 652 (3rd ed. 1984). The basic and seminal case of People v. Collins, 68 Cal.2d 319, 66 Cal.Rptr. 497, 438 P.2d 33 (1968) is also most informative with some striking factual similarities.
I am unpersuaded that the majority properly understands Professor Tribe’s article in present opinion attempt to differentiate final argument from expert witness testimony. In careful reading, I do not find the final argument to be excluded from the prosecutorial “mathematical proof.” In blunt terms, the difference is that when this kind of argument is used, the expert provided as a witness is the prosecuting attorney himself.
In initial concept, Professor Tribe stated:
In speaking of mathematical methods “in the trial process,” I am referring to two related but nonetheless separable topics: not only to the use of mathematical tools in the actual conduct of a particular trial, but also to the use of such tools in the design of the trial system as a whole. The first topic encompasses such questions as the propriety of allowing the parties in a lawsuit to employ explicitly statistical evidence or overtly probabilistic arguments for various purposes, and the wisdom of permitting or encouraging the trier to resolve the conflicting claims of a lawsuit with the assistance of mathematical methods.
Tribe, supra, 84 Harv.L.Rev. at 1330 (footnote omitted).
I suspect that this majority’s suggestion that final argument usage of the mathematical proof contention is not a “tool for decisionmaking” would come to Professor Tribe as a great surprise. Clearly, argument as well as expert testimony based on the prosecutor’s assumption of probabilities is of the essence in the case of Collins. Professor Tribe stated:
First, my subject is the use of mathematics as a tool for decisionmaking rather than simply as a mode of thought, as an instrument rather than as a language.
Second, although my central concern is the wisdom of using mathematical methods for certain decisionmaking purposes even when those methods are rationally employed, I will also examine what must be regarded as clearly irrational uses of those methods.
Tribe, supra, 84 Harv.L.Rev. at 1331 (footnote omitted).
Combined with my persuasions that Professor Tribe’s cogent and comprehensive analysis specifically applies here to a black in Casper defined in. oral argument mathematically to prove identity, I would also recognize his enumeration of the separate significance of mathematical decision to determine identity.2 Usage by the argument *715approach personified in this case is more pervasive since no one provided information to the jury about the number of vehicles of that kind in Casper and how many young blacks might be available for comparison.
There is a further source for education in mathematical evidence in criminal cases stated in McCord, A Primer for the Non-mathematically Inclined on Mathematical Evidence in Criminal Cases: People v. Collins and Beyond, 47 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 741 (1990).3 Our present case fits specifically into the McCord fourth category:
The fourth category is called “non-empirical probabilities of guilt developed without empirical statistics and without Bayes’ Theorem.” This category is composed of instances where the prosecutor, in line with the mathematical probabilist tenet that all evidence is inherently probabilistic, probabilizes non-empirically sampled data, and then further relies on the probabilist position that the burden of persuasion is probabilistic by arguing that the subjective probability of guilt based upon the non-empirically sampled data is sufficient to convict, all without using Bayes’ Theorem. The quintessential example of this category is People v. Collins.
M at 759.
In addition to Collins, we find specific reference to prejudicial harm in summation discussion by use of mathematical proof in United States v. Massey, 594 F.2d 676 (8th Cir.1979), limited by exclusion of blood type testing sub nom. United States v. Kandiel, 865 F.2d 967 (8th Cir.1989). Cf. Huf v. State, 675 P.2d 268 (Alaska App.1984), where it was deemed to be harmless error since only used in argument in a very strong evidentiary case. In addition to Collins and Massey, general case law on evidentiary misuse of mathematical proof is persistently available to demonstrate the total impropriety of the racially directed, statistically invalid foray of prosecutor in summation portrayed here. See Miller v. State, 240 Ark. 340, 399 S.W.2d 268 (1966); People v. Collins, 43 Mich.App. 259, 204 N.W.2d 290 (1972), cert. denied 419 U.S. 866, 95 S.Ct. 121, 42 L.Ed.2d 103 (1974); *716State v. Sneed, 76 N.M. 349, 414 P.2d 858 (1966); and Brown v. State, 751 P.2d 1078 (Okl.Cr.1988). See also Branion v. Gramly, 855 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied 490 U.S. 1008, 109 S.Ct. 1645, 104 L.Ed.2d 160 (1989); Graham v. State, 168 Ga.App. 23, 308 S.E.2d 413 (1983), Dean, P.J., specially concurring; People v. Harbold, 124 Ill.App.3d 363, 79 Ill.Dec. 830, 464 N.E.2d 734 (1984); Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 350 A.2d 665 (1976); and Phillips By and Through Utah State Dept. of Social Services v. Jackson, 615 P.2d 1228 (Utah 1980); but see, however, People v. Prewitt, 160 Ill.App.3d 942, 112 Ill.Dec. 368, 513 N.E.2d 977 (1987); Com. v. Drayton, 386 Mass. 39, 434 N.E.2d 997 (1982); People v. Bailey, 36 Mich.App. 272, 193 N.W.2d 405 (1971); and State v. Woodall, 385 S.E.2d 253 (W.Va.1989).
What is so strange about all of this is that the mathematical proof overstatement has been definitively addressed by this court in a plain error context in Stephens v. State, 774 P.2d 60, 64 (Wyo.1989) (emphasis added):
The expert witnesses included a pediatrician who had examined and treated cases of child sexual abuse and who had testified as an expert on the subject in several trials. He described some symptoms, both physical and behavioral, that, in his opinion, are commonly displayed by child victims of sexual abuse. The symptoms that he related included an unusual awareness of specific sexual acts, such as oral copulation, bed-wetting, changes in moods, and nightmares. This victim displayed all of these symptoms described by the witness. The doctor advised the jury that statistically eighty to eighty-five percent of child sexual abuse is committed by a relative close to the child. No objection was made to this testimony and, although one court has found error in the admission of such testimony, State v. Petrich, 101 Wash.2d 566, 683 P.2d 173 (1984), we do not perceive that testimony to be plain error. It is difficult, however, to understand how statistical information would assist a trier of fact in reaching a determination as to guilt in an individual case and, had an objection been made, it should have been sustained.
I would reverse and remand for retrial.

. A casual comparison of the forged check with the file material which provides the signature of Pearson would suggest at least to the ordinarily experienced practicing lawyer that unless Pearson had an avocation not revealed by the pre-sentence investigation report, he did not do the forgery. One would assume that is the reason the police did not attempt to determine one way or another whether he had or had not.

. In footnote analysis in the law journal, Professor Tribe related:
A quite distinct problem, more serious in cases relying on human identification than in cases where identification is based on physical evidence, is that the characteristics of the defendant relied upon in the probabilistic formula may not in fact have been shared by the actually guilty individual or individuals because of some mistake in observation or memory. Such risks of error, like the risk of frame-up, are hard to quantify and hence likely to be underemphasized in a quantitative analysis, but differ from the risk of frame-up in that they need not perversely increase as *715the apparent probative value of the evidence increases.
Tribe, supra, 84 Harv.L.Rev. at 1363 n. 111. Professor Tribe then concludes in regard to fact directed use of mathematics:
I am not yet prepared to say that the costs of mathematical precision enumerated here are so great as to outweigh any possible gain that might be derived from the carefully limited use of probabilistic proof in special circumstances. I do think it clear, however, that those circumstances would have to be extraordinary indeed for the proponents of mathematical methods of proof to make even a plausible case.
With the possible exception of using statistical data to shift the burden of production, and perhaps with the further exception of using evidence as to frequencies in order to negate a misleading impression of uniqueness that expert opinion might otherwise convey, I think it fair to say that the costs of attempting to integrate mathematics into the factfinding process of a legal trial outweigh the benefits.
Id. at 1377 (footnote omitted). And then finally for the basic subject states:
In an era when the power but not the wisdom of science is increasingly taken for granted, there has been a rapidly growing interest in the conjunction of mathematics and the trial process. The literature of legal praise for the progeny of such a wedding has been little short of lyrical. Surely the time has come for someone to suggest that the union would be more dangerous than fruitful.
Id. at 1393. (This was just twenty years ago when written.) See also Finkelstein and Fair-ley, The Continuing Debate Over Mathematics in the Law of Evidence, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1801 (1971) and Tribe, A Further Critique of Mathematical Proof, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1810 (1971).

. By reference to this current law journal, I do not intend to suggest a limited supply of authoritative writings on this subject. If we include the current rash of DNA testing articles (for most recent example, see Comment, DNA Fingerprinting: Evidence of the Future, 79 Ky.L.J. 415 (1991) and Comment, Admissibility of DNA Genetic Profiling Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: The Case for Caution, 18 Pepperdine L.Rev. 123 (1990)), a number of reviews and writings in legal and scientific journal sources, in addition to at least two books relating to the subject of mathematical proof may exceed a hundred in number. In a generic way, compare Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics, 103 Harv.L.Rev. 1 (1989) to Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 Colum.L.Rev. 110 (1991). See also Comment, Evidence — Rules of Admissibility and the Law of Probability, VIII Land & Water L.Rev. 285 (1973).