Court Opinion

ID: 9565842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:28:56.173355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:54.646888
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting, with whom CARDINE, Chief Justice,* joins.
I would affirm Bennett’s conviction in this case. I read the record somewhat differently from the summarization in the majority opinion. On my reading of the record, the holding of Stephens v. State, 774 P.2d 60 (Wyo.1989), is not implicated in this instance any more than it would be in any other case in which a fact witness testified as to his observations. Surely, the law permits the victim of an armed robbery to testify that the defendant pointed a revolver at him; demanded his wrist watch; and took it. It is certain that testimony such as that by an eye witness does not constitute an invasion of any prerogatives of the jury. In my judgment, the situation in this case is not materially different from the foregoing example.
The propriety of a solution to a problem usually depends to an extent on the perspective from which the problem is examined. There often is a marked difference between the academic solution and a pragmatic solution. The perspective frequently even affects the definition of the problem. *884A popular trial argument in this time is what I call the telegram argument. Counsel urges the judge or jury to send someone a message. I am firmly convinced that this court needs to consider the nature of the message it is sending to drug traffickers. Are we going to tell them that we will endeavor to extend case precedents to the limits so that they may avoid the consequences of their antisocial behavior? Or shall we tell them instead that we choose not to coddle criminals, and we will limit the application of case precedent so far as the constitution allows to make them answer for their crimes? I prefer the more strict attitude to the permissive approach.
The problem confronting the court in this case is the impact of trafficking in controlled substances upon society. Some tend to describe this as a victimless crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. I recently viewed a portion of a television program that addressed the social nightmare of “crack cocaine” babies born in the city of New York. Realism demands recognition that, because of the social costs generated by the drug culture and those who supply the demand, all of us are economic victims of this style of antisocial behavior, and many of us will be victims of criminal acts as well.
I must first of all point out that Bennett’s attorney indeed was engaged in an intense effort to suggest that Agent Hinton’s investigation and testimony were the product of bias. As I read the record, Bennett’s attorney clearly introduced the matter of opinion, and that justified the inquiry by the prosecutor, which was directed at explaining the basis for the answer given on cross-examination. The function of the prosecution’s inquiry, as the district judge clearly discerned, was to diminish, insofar as possible, any impression that Hinton was biased.
The questions by Bennett’s attorney in the course of interrogating Hinton about whether he actually observed certain individuals, including Bennett, dealing drugs resulted in Hinton’s testimony that he never saw anything come out of the hands of these individuals directly. The exchange between defense counsel and Hinton reads in the record:
“Q Now, from what you observed on the weekends and at night, you found Michael Merritt and Curtis Wilkinson and Danny Bennett to be associated with each other at different times and different places during the period of time that you surveilled them; isn’t that correct?
“A Yes.
“Q How many times did you actually observe Michael Merritt dealing drugs?
“A My opinion?
“Q No, I want to know what you actually observed — Michael Merritt dealing drugs, handing drugs to somebody or receiving cash?
“A I never saw him — anything coming out of his hands directly.
“Q How about Curtis Wilkinson, did you ever see anything directly come out of his hands or receive anything directly?
“A No.
“Q How about Danny Bennett?
“A No.
“Q But now you began to qualify your questions in your opinion?
“A Yes.
“Q You have opinions about times that you thought that they were doing that; isn’t that correct?
“A Yes.”
On redirect examination, the prosecutor then interjected this question:
“Q Mr. Frentheway asked you if, in your opinion, Mr. Bennett was a drug dealer and you said yes.
“A Yes.
“Q I’ll ask the next question. Why?”
What follows in the record demonstrates that, in the foregoing exchange, Hinton did nothing more than reaffirm that he had answered “yes” to defense counsel’s question about his opinion as to whether Mr. Bennett was a drug dealer. After that, Hinton’s testimony, including the answer quoted at page three of the majority opinion, was simply nothing more than his explanation of why he held the opinion that had been elicited by defense counsel. It is also important to note that other witnesses *885had testified to practically all of the information that Hinton reported as supporting his opinion.
This court, in other contexts, has articulated the proposition that it is fair for the prosecution to develop a matter further when a defendant opens the door to a subject that otherwise might be foreclosed. Makinen v. State, 737 P.2d 345 (Wyo.1987); Reinholt v. State, 601 P.2d 1311 (Wyo.1979); Sanville v. State, 593 P.2d 1340 (Wyo.1979). That is exactly what happened in this instance when the defendant, in a designed effort to create an impression of bias on the part of Agent Hinton, asked Hinton about his opinion. In this regard, the case is much like Reinholt.
It is this opening of the door by Bennett to what would otherwise be clearly inadmissible testimony that serves to distinguish this case from Stephens. Counsel for Bennett was engaged in an effort to discredit Hinton because of his bias. Counsel apparently wanted to establish that bias by asking about an opinion held by Hinton, which also addressed culpability for the crime. Such a circumstance might not occur often, but the court should be wary of adopting a rule that would foreclose a technique of advocacy that counsel for a defendant in a criminal case might want to invoke. The disposition by the majority requires the state to object or the trial judge to cut off this effort by the defendant to establish bias. In my judgment, it is better to permit counsel to try the case rather than to foreclose techniques of advocacy simply because, in hindsight, the effort was unsuccessful.
Because I am of the opinion that Bennett’s conviction should be affirmed, it is appropriate to discuss briefly the other assertions of error outlined in the majority opinion. As to the contention that plain error occurred when the state was allowed to introduce evidence that two of its witnesses had entered pleas of guilty to offenses arising out of the same circumstances as the crime charged to the appellant, I agree with the state that the prosecution was entitled to use that evidence, both for impeachment and to clarify questions and statements elicited by counsel for the defendant. It is not demonstrable that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated. Scheikofsky v. State, 636 P.2d 1107 (Wyo.1981). This is not a situation in which error per se is assigned. Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1093 (Wyo.1989). See Stephens; Brewster v. State, 712 P.2d 338 (Wyo.1985); Richter v. State, 642 P.2d 1269 (Wyo.1982); Clenin v. State, 573 P.2d 844 (Wyo.1978) (all cases involving allegations of prejudicial error per se).
With respect to the claim of error involving the search of the overnight bag found in the Mercedes, it is a recognized legal doctrine that an automobile may be seized upon probable cause, and that is an accepted exception to the requirement for a search warrant. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790 (1925); Ortega v. State, 669 P.2d 935 (Wyo.1983). It is permissible then to inventory the contents of the vehicle that has been impounded lawfully if that inventory is made pursuant to standard police procedure. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). Agent Hinton testified that the inventory of the Mercedes was conducted pursuant to a procedure of his office. The inventory of the vehicle seized upon probable cause, even though conducted without a warrant, was justified. See Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478 (Wyo.1988); Williams v. State, 557 P.2d 135 (Wyo.1976).
Insofar as Bennett claims error arising out of a denial of his opportunity to cross-examine another witness concerning possible bias, the record establishes that Bennett was not prevented from asking questions with respect to the witness’ motivation for testifying as well as any potential incentives for falsification. He also had the opportunity to ask other questions in an attempt to impeach the witness if he desired. See Aguilar v. State, 764 P.2d 684 (Wyo.1988). Furthermore, no offer of proof was made that would serve to preserve this claim of error. Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020, 65 A.L.R.4th 1011 (Wyo.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 962, 107 S.Ct. 459, 93 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986); Krucheck v. State, 702 P.2d 1267 (Wyo.1985). I note that, had counsel been foreclosed from his *886effort to demonstrate Hinton’s bias, the ruling would be challenged by Bennett under this claim of error.
With respect to the post-arrest statement of the co-defendant, Jenkins, that statement did not involve a confession or an admission of guilt. It also did not constitute an inculpatory statement so far as Bennett was concerned. The only statement introduced was that he did not wish to discuss the defendant’s situation, and that statement has no potential for prejudice in the context of this alleged error.
Bennett also contends that he should not have been tried jointly with Jenkins. Joint trials of defendants charged with committing the same offense are the rule rather than the exception. Jasch v. State, 563 P.2d 1327 (Wyo.1977). Severance is a matter of discretion and is not subject to reversal absent clear abuse. Jasch. Ordinarily, there must be compelling reasons for separate trials. Linn v. State, 505 P.2d 1270 (Wyo.1973), cert. denied sub nom Lucas v. Wyoming, 411 U.S. 983, 93 S.Ct. 2277, 36 L.Ed.2d 959, reh. denied 412 U.S. 944, 93 S.Ct. 2780, 37 L.Ed.2d 405 (1973). Bennett asserts that there were antagonistic defenses, but such a situation is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute the prejudice that justifies severance. Mason v. United States, 719 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir.1983). The product of the jury’s deliberations demonstrates that they did not have to disbelieve one defense in order to believe the other and, consequently, there was no abuse of discretion with the ruling on severance. See United States v. Bruno, 809 F.2d 1097 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2198, 95 L.Ed.2d 853 (1987).
As his last claim of error, Bennett contends that improper closing argument was made, which appealed to the fears and prejudices of the jury and was preceded by the introduction of irrelevant and inflammatory evidence. We note initially that no objection was made to arguments so the plain error standard again is invoked. Wheeler v. State, 691 P.2d 599 (Wyo.1984); Jones v. State, 580 P.2d 1150 (Wyo.1978). Furthermore, the claims made by Bennett do not flow from a correct quotation of the record. We find no justification for plain error with respect to closing argument from our perusal of the record. See Goggins v. Harwood, 704 P.2d 1282 (Wyo.1985). With respect to the admission of evidence, we note that to be a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hatheway v. State, 623 P.2d 741 (Wyo.1981). The possibility of prejudice from improperly admitted evidence is not sufficient to exclude it, but its probative value must be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Rule 403, W.R.E. If the evidence has probative value concerning the existence of the charged crimes, the trial court’s ruling should stand. Dorador v. State, 768 P.2d 1049 (Wyo.1989). Furthermore, there is no indication of prejudicial error if error occurred. Rule 7.04, W.R.A.P.; Rule 49(a), W.R.Cr.P.; Bishop v. State, 687 P.2d 242 (Wyo.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1219, 105 S.Ct. 1203, 84 L.Ed.2d 345 (1985). Under the circumstances, there exists no prejudicial error relating to either the introduction of the evidence attacked by Bennett or in the arguments of counsel.
It is my conclusion that there is no reversible error to be found in this record. I am particularly at odds with the conclusion that reversible error can be found by applying Stephens to these facts. I would affirm Bennett’s conviction.

 Chief Justice at time of oral argument.