Kevin K. Callen, Sr. v. State of Wyoming

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed Kevin K. Callen Sr.'s conviction as an accessory before the fact to arson. The court rejected challenges concerning co-conspirator hearsay, expert testimony about methamphetamine manufacturing, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Holdings

1. The challenged statements by Rosenberger were admissible under W.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E) because the record contained prima facie evidence of a conspiracy involving Callen, Sherley, and Rosenberger and the statements were made during and in furtherance of that conspiracy. A witness need not be a member of the conspiracy to testify about statements made by its participants.
2. The trial court was not required to make express findings on the record that the requirements of W.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E) were satisfied absent a specific request from a party.
3. The trial court properly admitted the expert's description of the chemical and physical process of manufacturing methamphetamine because it helped establish the value of the seized items and connected Callen's drug prosecution to his motive and intent to have the items and the DCI building destroyed.
4. The prosecutor's questioning of Rosenberger about whether other witnesses were lying was improper misconduct, but Callen failed to demonstrate material prejudice under plain-error review. The prosecutor's closing argument concerning reasonable doubt did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule because, viewed in context, it did not define reasonable doubt for the jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether testimony concerning statements by Sherley and Rosenberger was admissible as co-conspirator statements under W.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E), including whether the trial court was required to make express on-the-record findings.
2. Whether expert testimony describing the chemical and physical process of manufacturing methamphetamine was relevant and probative of Callen's motive and intent in the arson prosecution.
3. Whether two alleged acts of prosecutorial misconduct—asking a witness whether other witnesses were lying and commenting on reasonable doubt during closing argument—constituted plain error and materially prejudiced Callen.

Disposition

affirmed