Eaton v. State

192 P.3d 36

2008 WY 97

Dale Wayne EATON, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 04-180.

No. 06-255.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

August 18, 2008.

Rehearing Denied September 15, 2008.

Representing Appellant: Kenneth M. Koski, Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; Marion Yoder, Senior Assistant Public Defender; Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel. Argument by Tina N. Kerin.

Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling; David L. Delicath; and Melissa M. Swearingen, Senior Assistant Attorneys General. No. 04-180 argued by D. Michael Pauling; No. 06-255 argued by David L. Delicath.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................... ¶ 1

Issues ............................................................................................ ¶ 2
Facts and Proceedings ......................................................................... ¶¶ 3-10
Discussion ................................................................................... ¶¶ 11-12
PART I. Guilt/Innocence Phase
A. Was Eaton Incompetent During Trial and the Proceedings in this Court
     (i) Competency as a medical/mental issue ................................................ ¶¶ 13-23
    (ii) Competency as suggested by events at trial .......................................... ¶¶ 24-30
B. Voir Dire as Predisposing Jury to Find Eaton Guilty ....................................... ¶¶ 31-32
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ......................................................... ¶¶ 33-37
     (i) Did the theory-of-the-case defense chosen by defense counsel meet the ABA Guidelines
         for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty
         Cases (February 2003) ............................................................... ¶¶ 38-47
    (ii) No challenge to DNA ................................................................. ¶¶ 48-50
   (iii) Failure to know the applicable law .................................................. ¶¶ 51-54
    (iv) Concession of guilt without Eaton's consent ......................................... ¶¶ 55-61
     (v) Defense counsel's election to allow the trial to proceed when Eaton was not
         competent to stand trial constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel .................. ¶ 62
    (vi) Waiver of venue ..................................................................... ¶¶ 63-65
   (vii) Failure to object to instructions ................................................... ¶¶ 66-73
  (viii) The foregoing arguments, in combination, demonstrate that Eaton was abandoned by
         defense counsel ..................................................................... ¶¶ 74-76
D. Hostility/Prejudice/Bias Toward Eaton at Guilt/Innocence Phase; Additional Remand ......... ¶¶ 77-79
     (i) Guilt/innocence phase prejudice/bias/hostility ...................................... ¶¶ 80-81
    (ii) Need for additional remand .............................................................. ¶ 82
E. Juror Misconduct .......................................................................... ¶¶ 83-91
F. Admission of Evidence ......................................................................... ¶ 92
     (i) Testimony of Joe Dax ................................................................ ¶¶ 93-96
    (ii) Dr. Thorpen in the jury box ......................................................... ¶¶ 97-98
   (iii) Mary Follette ...................................................................... ¶¶ 99-100
G. Record Incomplete ....................................................................... ¶¶ 101-102
H. Prosecutorial Misconduct ................................................................ ¶¶ 103-104
I. Cumulative Error ............................................................................. ¶ 105
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... ¶ 106
PART II: Sentencing Phase ....................................................................... ¶ 107
A. Voir Dire ............................................................................... ¶¶ 108-114
B. Application of the 2003 Statute to this Case ............................................ ¶¶ 115-125
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ............................................................ ¶ 126
     (i) 2003 statute ........................................................................... ¶ 127
    (ii) Whether Trial Counsel Provided Ineffective Assistance in the Investigation and
          Presentation in the Sentencing Phase of Mitigating Evidence ...................... ¶¶ 128-185
   (iii) Instructions ...................................................................... ¶¶ 186-188
    (iv) Sentencing form inadequate ............................................................. ¶ 189
D. Hostility of Judge ........................................................................... ¶ 190
E. Prosecutorial Misconduct ..................................................................... ¶ 191
     (i) In dosing argument ................................................................ ¶¶ 192-200
    (ii) During examination of witnesses. .................................................. ¶¶ 201-205
   (iii) Destruction of evidence. ............................................................... ¶ 206

F. Allowing Dr. Ash to Testify ............................................................. ¶¶ 207-210
G. Instructions Improper ................................................................... ¶¶ 211-213
H. Record Incomplete............................................................................. ¶ 214
     (i) Instructions conference/other discussions ......................................... ¶¶ 215-216
    (ii) Remand hearing too limited ............................................................. ¶ 217
I. Error in Admission of Too Much Evidence About 1998 Conviction ................................ ¶ 218
Conclusion ...................................................................................... ¶ 219
Part III: Motion for New Trial .................................................................. ¶ 220
Discussion .............................. .................................................. ¶¶ 221-227
Conclusion ................................................................................. ¶¶ 228-230

HILL, Justice.

INTRODUCTION

[¶ 1] Appellant, Dale Wayne Eaton (Eaton), seeks review of his conviction for the crime of first-degree murder, as well as for other crimes,¹ and the sentence of death which was imposed on June 3, 2004. We will affirm the Judgment as to all convictions. We will affirm both the convictions and the death sentence.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Eaton raises these issues:

I. The trial court committed reversible error and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by applying post-1989 amendments to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-102 (1982) to Eaton's case.

II. Eaton received ineffective assistance of counsel.

A. Eaton's counsel were ineffective for stipulating to the use of the entire 2001 amended version of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-102 (1982), excluding "future dangerousness." Amended portions were more disadvantageous to Eaton and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States and Wyoming constitutions.

B. Defense counsel were ineffective by failing to comply in substantive ways with the ABA Guidelines which establish specific standards for both experience and performance in trying death penalty cases.

C. Failure to know the law.

D. Concession of Eaton's guilt without valid consent from him.

E. Eaton was unable to assist in his defense and thus not competent to be tried. Counsel's failure to address this fundamental problem and election to allow the case to proceed under these circumstances rendered trial patently unfair.

F. Trial counsel were ineffective for waiving objection to venue.

G. The oversights, errors and decisions to forego (i.e., the sorts of things set out above) amounted to an abandonment of Eaton's defense by his own counsel.

H. Defense counsel were ineffective in failing to adequately investigate potential mitigation evidence, failing to offer appropriate mitigation evidence, and failing to provide necessary information to mitigation experts.

I. Counsel's failure to object to the given instructions which were substantively different than those proposed by the defense constituted substandard performance and substantially prejudiced Eaton.

J. Counsel did not assure that Eaton's jury was given a constitutionally adequate sentencing form.

III. The jury was not properly instructed on the law as intended by Wyoming's death penalty statute.

IV. An unconstitutional and fatally defective voir dire deprived Eaton of a fair and impartial jury to determine his guilt or innocence and to decide on life or death.

V. The trial court was biased at trial and in limiting the remand, showing such hostility to his claims that Eaton was deprived of due process and prejudiced as a result.

VI. Prosecutorial misconduct occurred, violating Eaton's due process rights and warranting reversal.

VII. Eaton was unable to assist in his own defense and thus was not competent to be tried.

VIII. The trial court erred in denying defense counsel's motion for mistrial, where a juror conducted his own investigation and discussed his investigation during deliberations.

IX. The trial court erred in the admission and presentation of evidence.

X. The trial court erred in permitting the testimony of Dr. Ash without Eaton's express waiver of privilege, and without insuring the protection of Eaton's Fifth Amendment right against...