Davis v. State, 2017 WY 147

406 P.3d 1233 (Wyo. 2017) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · December 14, 2017 · No. S-16-0253; S-17-0087

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Gregory Douglas Davis’s conviction for strangulation of a household member. The court held that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the allegedly withheld information was disclosed before trial and that sufficient evidence supported the findings that Davis impeded the victim’s breathing or blood circulation and caused bodily injury.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
Burke, Chief Justice; Davis, Justice; Fox, Justice; Hill, Justice; Kautz, Justice
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
December 14, 2017
Docket number
S-16-0253; S-17-0087
Procedural posture
Appeal from a criminal conviction and consolidated appeals from the denial of two motions for a new trial.
Standard of review
The denial of a motion for a new trial is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, but alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence implicating constitutional due-process rights is reviewed de novo. Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed by asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the prevailing party and without reweighing evidence or reassessing witness credibility.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Gregory Douglas Davis v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

prosecutorial misconductsuppression of evidencedue processcriminal procedureevidence

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional criminal procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland and denied Davis due process by failing to disclose that the victim had told the prosecutor she disagreed with characterizing the incident as strangulation.
  2. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by portraying the victim as a recanting witness and allegedly holding herself out as a witness.
  3. Whether sufficient evidence supported Davis's conviction by establishing that he recklessly caused bodily injury by applying pressure to the victim's throat or neck and impeding her breathing or blood circulation.

Holdings

  1. There was no Brady violation because the substance of the victim's prior statement was disclosed to the defense through a recorded interview well before trial, and the defense used the information in cross-examination.
  2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Davis recklessly caused bodily injury by applying pressure to the victim's throat or neck and impeding her breathing or blood circulation.

Key quotations

In order to establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecution suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable to the defendant, and the evidence was material. (¶19)
As long as disclosure is made before it is too late for the defendant to make use of the evidence, due process is satisfied. (¶22)
We will not reweigh the evidence nor will we re-examine the credibility of the witnesses. (¶26)

Factual background

During an altercation at Davis's home, Gregory Davis threw his estranged wife to the floor, restrained her, and grabbed her neck while she repeatedly said she could not breathe. She escaped, called 911, and was later observed to have red marks, bruising, petechiae, headache, incontinence, and possible loss of consciousness; medical personnel and a physician associated those symptoms with strangulation or oxygen deprivation. Before trial, the victim gave accounts minimizing or contradicting portions of her earlier statements, and the defense challenged the State's disclosure of her initial disagreement with the term strangulation.

Procedural history

Davis was convicted by a jury of strangulation of a household member after a five-day trial and was sentenced to two to four years in prison. The district court denied his first motion for a new trial based on the victim's trial testimony, and later denied a second motion alleging that the State failed to disclose exculpatory information. The Wyoming Supreme Court consolidated the two appeals and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…