Curtis Russell Oldman v. State, 2015 WY 121 (Wyo. 2015) | Supreme Court of Wyoming 2015 | LawTools

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Curtis Russell Oldman's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery. The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported an agreement between Oldman and his brother and that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct concerning mere presence did not constitute reversible plain error.

Court

Supreme Court of Wyoming

Writing for the Court

Golden, Justice (Ret.); Burke, C.J.; Davis, J.; Fox, J.; Golden, J. (Ret.); Kautz, D.J.

Jurisdiction

Wyoming

Decision date

September 15, 2015

Docket number

S-15-0002

Procedural posture

Oldman appealed his jury conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish an agreement and that the prosecutors committed misconduct during opening statement and closing argument.

Standard of review

For sufficiency of the evidence, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, deferred to the jury's credibility determinations, did not reweigh the evidence, and considered whether the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the statutory elements were proved. Because defense counsel did not timely object to the challenged prosecutorial argument, the misconduct claims were reviewed for plain error.

Precedential value

Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential subject to formal revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter Third.

Parties

Curtis Russell Oldman v. State of Wyoming

Disposition

affirmed

Topics

conspiracyprosecutorial misconductcriminal procedureappellate procedureevidence

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureAppellate practice

Questions Presented

Whether sufficient evidence supported Oldman's conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery, particularly the existence of an agreement between Oldman and A.S.
Whether the prosecutors committed reversible misconduct by using the phrase "if he was there, he was aware" in opening statement and closing argument to suggest that Oldman's mere presence established the conspiracy.

Holdings

The evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably find that Oldman and A.S. voluntarily agreed that one of them would commit robbery and therefore to sustain Oldman's conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery.
The prosecutors' use of the phrase "if he was there, he was aware" did not constitute reversible prosecutorial misconduct or plain error.

Key quotations

“A mere tacit understanding will suffice, and there need not be any written statement or even a speaking of words which expressly communicates agreement.” (¶ 4)

“We are not to reweigh the evidence.” (¶ 5)

“We affirm Mr. Oldman’s conviction and sentence.” (¶ 20)

Factual background

Oldman, his sixteen-year-old brother A.S., and two others traveled to a Walmart parking lot after an unsuccessful attempt to obtain money for iPods at Game Stop. Surveillance footage and testimony showed that A.S. approached a woman, pointed a gun at her, took her purse, and immediately returned to the vehicle while Oldman watched and the vehicle fled. The evidence also showed that Oldman and A.S. had access to guns, discussed their conduct before the robbery, and fled from police after the robbery.

Procedural history

A Fremont County District Court jury found Oldman guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery. The district court entered judgment and sentence. Oldman appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which reviewed the sufficiency challenge and the unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims and affirmed.

Download Case Download Case Data Download Case and Data Download AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF

Loading document…

Curtis Russell Oldman v. State