Martin v. State

2007 WY 76 (Wyo. 2007) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · May 10, 2007 · No. No. 05-263

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed Russell James Martin's conviction for attempted second-degree murder arising from his attack on his wife with a hammer. The court held that one officer's hearsay testimony concerning prior domestic violence was properly admitted, another officer's more specific hearsay testimony was improperly admitted but harmless, and the limiting instruction was not reversible error. The court also found that expert testimony concerning Martin's intent was inappropriate but harmless, and affirmed the conviction.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
HILL, Justice; VOIGT, C.J.; GOLDEN, J.; HILL, J.; KITE, J.; BURKE, J.
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
May 10, 2007
Docket number
No. 05-263
Procedural posture
Martin appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree murder, challenging the admission of hearsay concerning uncharged domestic misconduct, the limiting jury instruction concerning that evidence, and expert testimony regarding his intent.
Standard of review
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for clear abuse of discretion. If an evidentiary error occurred, the court determines whether it affected a substantial right and was harmful. Jury-instruction issues are reviewed deferentially; an unobjected-to instruction is reviewed for plain error, requiring a clear record, violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, and material prejudice.
Precedential value
Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Russell James Martin v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

hearsayevidencejury instructionsstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidenceappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether officers were properly permitted to recount the victim's prior statements concerning uncharged domestic violence under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B).
  2. Whether the district court's limiting instruction concerning uncharged misconduct evidence constituted reversible error.
  3. Whether a mental-health expert improperly invaded the province of the jury by interpreting Martin's post-incident statements as indicating purposeful action and an intent to kill.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Officer Hloucal's testimony recounting the victim's prior statement that Martin had choked and hit her.
  2. The district court abused its discretion by admitting Officer West's testimony that Martin had threatened to slit the victim's throat, but the error was harmless.
  3. The limiting instruction did not constitute reversible error.
  4. The expert's testimony interpreting Martin's statements as indicating deliberate or purposeful action was inappropriate and invaded the province of the jury, but the error was harmless.

Key quotations

The Rule does not allow for the use of hearsay evidence to fill in the gaps in the testimony elicited from the initial declarant. (at 930)
Although disguised in that manner, it is clear that the State called Dr. Buckwell because it wanted the jury to hear that, in Dr. Buckwell's opinion, Martin's statements "indicated deliberate or purposeful action." (at 932)

Factual background

During an argument on August 22, 2004, Martin struck his wife multiple times in the head with a hammer, causing severe skull fractures requiring emergency neurosurgery. Martin called his mother and 911, stating that he believed he had killed his wife, and later told police he had used methamphetamine, heard voices, and had “just lost it.” At trial, the defense argued that mental disease or methamphetamine-induced psychosis prevented Martin from appreciating his conduct or forming the intent to kill.

Procedural history

Martin was charged in Wyoming circuit court and was evaluated for competency before the case was bound over to district court. Following a jury trial in June 2005, he was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and sentenced by the district court in September 2005 to 50 years to life. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…