Ogden v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed Troy Ogden's conviction for aggravated assault arising from his driving a vehicle toward the victim. The court held that the jury instruction permitting an inference of intent was a permissible inference rather than an impermissible presumption, and that challenged opinion and credibility testimony did not constitute plain error. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Holdings

1. Instruction 14 stated a permissive inference rather than a mandatory presumption and therefore did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law or relieve the State of its burden to prove specific intent. Read together, the jury instructions correctly stated the law and adequately addressed the issues presented.
2. The prosecution did not elicit impermissible opinions concerning Ogden's guilt or improper testimony vouching for the credibility of other witnesses. The challenged testimony was based on the witnesses' personal perceptions, was helpful to the jury, and concerned consistency and probable cause rather than ultimate guilt. No plain error occurred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that it could infer intent to cause bodily injury from a finding that Ogden knowingly drove his vehicle directly at the victim.
2. Whether the trial court committed plain error by permitting the prosecution to elicit testimony from lay witnesses about whether Ogden intentionally drove toward the victim and testimony from a detective concerning the consistency and reliability of witness accounts.

Disposition

affirmed