Baker v. State

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed David Dale Baker’s convictions for controlled-substance offenses, conspiracy, and child endangerment. The court upheld the warrantless search based on third-party consent, rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and jury instructions, and addressed the applicable conspiracy statute and merger of offenses. The court affirmed in part and remanded in part for sentencing purposes.

Holdings

1. A co-inhabitant's consent validly authorized the warrantless search where the facts available to officers objectively supported the conclusion that she had common authority over the residence, even though the defendant was absent and the door had been chained from inside.
2. The district court properly denied Baker's motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence and reasonable inferences supported a finding that the children were present while methamphetamine-related manufacturing activities occurred in the home.
3. The child-endangerment instructions did not constitute plain error because they adequately stated the statutory elements and did not clearly and unequivocally violate Wyoming law.
4. Neither the general conspiracy statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-303, nor the general controlled-substances conspiracy statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1042, applied to Baker's charged conduct. The specific conspiracy provision in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1059(a)(iv) governed, and Baker's charged conspiracies to possess precursors and laboratory equipment were not crimes under that provision.
5. Trial counsel's insistence that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1042 was the proper conspiracy statute constituted deficient performance, but Baker failed to establish prejudice because the alternative general conspiracy statute was also inapplicable and the remaining convictions were supported.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Merck had actual or apparent authority to consent to the warrantless search of Baker's residence and related premises.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Baker's two child-endangerment convictions.
3. Whether the child-endangerment jury instructions constituted plain error by failing to require contemporaneous presence of the children during active methamphetamine manufacture.
4. Whether the trial court used the wrong conspiracy statute and failed to instruct the jury on the legally applicable conspiracy elements.
5. Whether Baker received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel insisted that the controlled-substances conspiracy statute applied.
6. Whether the conspiracy counts should merge for charging or sentencing purposes.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded