Warner v. State

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Thomas Eugene Warner's convictions and consecutive sentences for second-degree sexual assault and indecent liberties with a minor. The court held that Warner was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that prosecutorial misconduct and improperly admitted expert rebuttal testimony constituted harmless error under the circumstances.

Holdings

1. The 658-day delay was presumptively prejudicial and required consideration of the Barker factors, but Warner was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial because he failed to demonstrate sufficient actual prejudice to his defense.
2. The prosecutor's repeated inquiries about uncharged misconduct that the trial court had ruled inadmissible were improper and constituted error, but the error was harmless beyond the required standard because the evidence against Warner was formidable and the inadmissible references did not reasonably affect the verdict.
3. The trial court erred by admitting the State's expert rebuttal testimony because the testimony did not rebut matters raised by the defense and the State had failed to provide required notice, but the error was harmless and did not warrant a mistrial or reversal.
4. Expert testimony may explain general symptoms and behaviors of sexual-assault victims and may incidentally support a victim's credibility, but an expert may not directly vouch for the victim's credibility; the testimony here did not constitute reversible vouching.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences within the statutory limits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 658-day delay between accusation and trial violated Warner's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
2. Whether the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by referring to previously excluded uncharged misconduct and commenting on witness credibility.
3. Whether the trial court erred by admitting undisclosed expert rebuttal testimony and denying Warner's motion for a mistrial.
4. Whether the alleged prosecutorial misconduct and rebuttal evidence deprived Warner of a fair trial.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences.

Disposition

affirmed