Asch v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming considers David Asch's appeal from his conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine. The court addresses claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, an alleged conflict arising from representation by attorneys in the State Public Defender's Office, a jury instruction concerning a witness's refusal to answer, and shackling during trial. The court reverses the conviction.

Holdings

1. Separate attorneys in the same State Public Defender's Office do not automatically create a disqualifying conflict or require reversal when they represent defendants charged with offenses arising from the same incident. The conflict question is examined case by case under W.R.Cr.P. 44(c).
2. Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of the arresting officer's preliminary-hearing testimony and by failing to adequately cross-examine the officer concerning observations central to the possession defense.
3. If a defendant objects, the State may not compel the defendant to wear jail or prison clothing before a jury absent a showing of a compelling need.
4. Counsel was not ineffective for calling Sutton or for failing to obtain a different result after Sutton refused to identify the source of the methamphetamine.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury that it could consider Sutton's refusal to identify the source of the methamphetamine in evaluating her credibility.
6. A defendant may not be shackled or otherwise physically restrained in the courtroom during a jury trial unless the State first moves for the restraints, the court holds a hearing allowing the defendant to contest the motion, and the court states compelling reasons for the restraints on the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Asch received ineffective assistance of counsel because of an alleged conflict arising when attorneys from the same State Public Defender's Office represented related defendants.
2. Whether Asch received ineffective assistance because counsel failed to obtain or adequately investigate the preliminary-hearing testimony and failed to cross-examine the arresting officer regarding material inconsistencies and weaknesses.
3. Whether Asch received ineffective assistance because counsel failed to ensure that he appeared in street clothes during trial.
4. Whether Asch received ineffective assistance because counsel called Sutton despite her refusal to identify the source of the methamphetamine.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury that Sutton's refusal to answer could be considered in evaluating her credibility.
6. Whether Asch was denied due process when he was shackled during the jury trial without a hearing and on-the-record justification.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded