Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2008 WY 21

By Meg

Summary of Decision issued February 28, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Janpol v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 21

Docket Number: S-07-0036

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; and David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Janpol was convicted of first-degree murder, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(a) and was sentenced t0o a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. His appeal raised issues about the jury instructions, about the presentence investigation report and about the district court?s denial of a motion for mistrial.

Jury Instructions: Janpol was not appealing from the form of the verdict, rather his argument was based on a colloquy that occurred during that State?s rebuttal closing argument. He contended that it constituted an oral modification or explanation of a jury instruction in violation of W.R.Cr.P. 30 which requires that jury instructions be in writing. The Court stated that the colloquy was not an instruction to the jury. Its comments applied to the instructions stating that the jury should follow the instructions and the verdict form. The Court could find no prejudice resulting from the judge telling the jury to follow a verdict form that was submitted by the appellant.
Presentence Investigation Report: Janpol argued that because he was convicted of committing a violent felony, he was not a qualified offender under the Addicted Offender Accountability Act. The Court stated that Janpol read the Act too narrowly. The purpose of the Act is to determine whether an offender could participate in a treatment program without posing an unreasonable risk to the safety of the public. The information contained in the evaluator?s report was meant to be related to the district court because it was indispensible in deciding whether treatment options should be considered as part of any sentence.
Motion for Mistrial: After reviewing the transcript of the trial and considering the prosecutor?s single comment in the context of all the testimony and the entire closing argument, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Janpol?s motion for mistrial.

Holding: The jury was properly instructed in regard to the consideration of lesser-included offenses, no confidential information was improperly included in the PSI, and the prosecutor?s misconduct during closing argument did not warrant a mistrial.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3b7ddo .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on February 28, 2008 (boomark / email).