Summary
The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed Jonmichael Guy’s conviction for attempted second-degree murder. The court rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, excessive courtroom security, unconstitutional statutes, and cumulative error, finding no prejudicial error.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether prosecutorial statements during closing argument improperly commented on Guy's exercise of his right to remain silent.
- Whether prosecutorial misstatements and improper vouching constituted prejudicial plain error.
- Whether Guy received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support attempted second-degree murder, including purposeful and malicious conduct.
- Whether the courtroom security arrangements were impermissibly excessive or prejudicial.
- Whether Guy's as-applied constitutional challenge to the attempt and second-degree-murder statutes was preserved for appellate review.
- Whether cumulative error warranted reversal.
Holdings
- The prosecutor's comments about the absence of a confession, the need to infer intent, and the lack of defense evidence were not direct or impermissible indirect comments on Guy's exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
- The prosecutor improperly vouched for the quality of the police investigation by stating that he stood behind the investigating officer and the investigation, but the error did not prejudice Guy and therefore did not warrant reversal.
- Guy failed to establish that trial counsel's performance was deficient or that any challenged act or omission prejudiced the defense.
- The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict Guy of attempted second-degree murder.
- The presence and movement of security personnel accompanying Guy in the courtroom did not constitute impermissible exceptional security measures or establish prejudice.
- Guy waived his as-applied constitutional challenge to the attempt and second-degree-murder statutes because he did not raise it in the district court and the challenge was not jurisdictional.
- Cumulative error did not warrant reversal because the errors identified by the court, considered together, did not prejudice Guy or render the trial unfair.
Key quotations
“Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.” (184 P.3d at 692)
“It is improper for the prosecuting attorney, even in responding to defense arguments, to personally vouch for . . . the state's witnesses.” (184 P.3d at 695)
“The purpose of evaluating for cumulative error is "to address whether the cumulative effect of two or more individually harmless errors has the potential to prejudice the defendant to the same extent as a single reversible error."” (184 P.3d at 701)
Factual background
After a verbal confrontation in Laramie, Guy and the driver of a Chevrolet Camaro again confronted Jacob Riske and Riske's companions. Guy approached Riske, and Riske felt a blow to his back when Guy was the only person within range; Guy and the driver then fled. Riske was bleeding from a stab wound and was later found to have suffered a perforated liver. Several eyewitnesses testified about the confrontations, although none saw the actual stabbing, and the jury convicted Guy of attempted second-degree murder.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Guy of attempted second-degree murder, and the district court sentenced him to 30 to 45 years in prison. While the appeal was pending, the Wyoming Supreme Court granted a limited remand under Calene v. State for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court found no ineffective assistance, and Guy appealed both his conviction and that determination. The Supreme Court affirmed.