 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dike v. State11/30/1999
nstructing the jury. Duckett v. State, 966 P.2d 941, 943 (Wyo. 1998). We will not find reversible error if the instructions correctly state the law. Id.
As we discussed in the last issue, an unloaded firearm is by definition a Adeadly weapon.@ This determination is, therefore, not one to be made by the jury. Because the instruction was a correct statement of the law, the trial court did not err by giving it.
C. Evidence of Seized Handguns and Ammunition
Dike next asserts that the trial court erred by allowing evidence into the trial of Aa plethora of guns and ammunition@ which was seized from the Dike residence after his arrest. He claims that the evidence was so unfairly prejudicial that it likely contaminated the minds of the jurors and prevented them from objectively deciding the case.
Dike testified at the trial that he did not have a gun during his argument with the victim, and law enforcement officials were unable to locate a gun matching the victim=s description. After arresting Dike, however, officers searched the residence in which Dike lived with his parents and seized a number of other guns, along with a variety of ammunition. Defense counsel filed a motion in limine wherein he argued that the introduction of a .22 caliber handgun would violate W.R.E. 401, 402, and 403. The motion was denied, and the evidence was allowed into trial without further objection. Dike contends that his motion in limine was sufficient to preserve an objection and escape the application of the plain error standard of review of the evidence regarding this particular gun. He acknowledges that the plain error standard of review must be employed with regard to the testimony concerning the other firearms and ammunition.
This Court has not addressed the issue of whether a motion in limine is sufficient to preserve an objection, and we do not consider this case to be an appropriate one in which to invoke that rule of law. The motion did not address the specific testimony with which Dike takes issue nor did it demonstrate how W.R.E. 401, 402, and 403 would be violated if the officers= testimony were allowed. Furthermore, the trial court did not make a final ruling on the evidentiary issues raised in Dike=s motion, opting instead to make specific determinations upon proper objections at the trial. Accordingly, our review is limited to a search for plain error.
A three-part test has been established for determining whether an error may achieve the status of plain error. First, the record must be clear as to the incident which is alleged as error. Second, the party claiming that the error amounted to plain error must demonstrate that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated. Finally, that party must prove that a substantial right has been denied him and as a result he has been materially prejudiced.
Bradley v. State, 635 P.2d 1161, 1164 (Wyo. 1981); see also Hodgins v. State, 962 P.2d 153, 156 (Wyo. 1998).
ARelevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.@ Hermreck v. State, 956 P.2d 335, 340 (Wyo. 1998); see also W.R.E. 403. Before this Court will conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted unduly prejudicial evidence, the appellant Amust demonstrate that the evidence had little or no probative value and that it was extremely inflammatory or introduced for the purpose of inflaming the jury.@ Apodaca v. State, 627 P.2d 1023, 1027 (Wyo. 1981); see also Hermreck, 956 P.2d at 340.
Dike complains about the testimony from Detective Bruce Dexter, Detective John Haukup, and Deputy Hardin, who detailed the guns and ammunition that were found at the Dike resid
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|