Sam v. State, 2017 WY 98

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court reviews Phillip Sam’s convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated assault and battery, and attempted aggravated assault and battery arising from a shooting committed when Sam was 16 years old. The court rejects challenges concerning transfer to juvenile court, jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, sufficiency of the evidence, and double jeopardy. It holds that the aggregate sentence exceeded constitutional limits applicable to juveniles under Miller v. Alabama and Bear Cloud v. State, and affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for resentencing.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying transfer to juvenile court, and admission of Detective Harper's testimony about the nature of the allegations did not violate Sam's statutory right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
2. The first-degree murder malice instruction was erroneous because it omitted the requirement that the intentional act be committed with hatred, ill will, or hostility, but the error was not prejudicial and did not warrant a new trial.
3. The recklessness instruction was erroneous because it stated ordinary recklessness rather than the heightened recklessness required for second-degree murder, but the error was not prejudicial because the jury convicted Sam of first-degree murder and did not reach the lesser-included offense.
4. The previously approved Eckert malice-inference instruction did not constitute plain error in this case, but Wyoming courts should thereafter use the Hereford formulation, which states that the jury may, but is not required to, infer malice from use of a deadly weapon and that malice must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. The duty-to-retreat instruction misstated Wyoming law by imposing an absolute duty to retreat before asserting self-defense, but the error was not prejudicial because the evidence established that Sam was an aggressor by the time he fired the fatal shot.
6. The prosecutor's victim-impact argument during the guilt phase was improper, but the error was harmless because it was not pervasive or central to the case and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
7. Attempted aggravated assault and battery under Wyoming Statutes section 6-2-502(a)(ii) is a specific-intent crime, but the State need prove only an intent to cause bodily injury to a person, not an intent to harm a particular identified individual. Firing knowingly into a group supplied sufficient evidence of that intent.
8. An aggregate minimum sentence of 52 years with possible release at age 70 was the functional equivalent of life without parole and violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller and Bear Cloud III because the sentencing court had determined that Sam was not one of the rare juvenile offenders permanently incorrigible enough to warrant incarceration for life.
9. The aggregate sentence did not deprive the parole board of statutory authority to consider parole after 25 years.
10. Separate sentences for first-degree murder and aggravated assault based on separate shots did not violate the federal or Wyoming constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying transfer of the proceedings to juvenile court.
2. Whether admission of investigative hearsay at the transfer hearing violated Sam's statutory right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
3. Whether the district court properly assessed juvenile facilities and the likelihood of rehabilitation.
4. Whether the jury instructions concerning a corrected instruction, attempt, malice, recklessness, inference of malice, aggressor status, retreat, and perceived threat were erroneous and prejudicial.
5. Whether the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by making victim-impact arguments during closing argument.
6. Whether sufficient evidence supported the ten attempted aggravated assault and battery convictions without proof that Sam intended to harm a particular individual.
7. Whether the aggregate sentence was an unconstitutional de facto life-without-parole sentence under the Eighth Amendment.
8. Whether the aggregate sentence unlawfully deprived the parole board of authority to consider parole after 25 years.
9. Whether separate sentences for murder and aggravated assault based on separate shots violated double jeopardy.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded