739 P.2d 1214 (Wyo. 1987)
Jimmy Ramirez was convicted by a jury of attempted second degree murder after stabbing his girlfriend Pam Blesi nine times with an ice pick during an incident at her apartment.1
Ramirez and Blesi met in the summer of 1984 when she bought a car from the auto dealership where he worked.2 They began dating, talked of marriage, and set a wedding date for June 29, 1985.3 Blesi later learned Ramirez had lied about his age and at least one prior marriage, called off the wedding, and the couple sought counseling while continuing to see each other.4
On the morning of August 4, 1985, after staying overnight, Blesi asked Ramirez to leave.5 He became angry, struck her, dragged her into a spare bedroom, tied her wrists with a bathrobe belt and her ankles with shoelaces, sexually penetrated her, and later stabbed her nine times with an ice pick after she banged on a window to attract a neighbor’s attention.6 Blesi suffered two collapsed lungs and multiple puncture wounds; Ramirez called an ambulance at her request.7
Ramirez was charged with attempted second degree murder, found guilty after a jury trial, and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in the penitentiary.8 On appeal he challenged the trial court’s refusal of his proposed abandonment instruction, exclusion of Dr. Burdick’s testimony that Blesi had been diagnosed with a venereal disease three days before the incident, denial of a mistrial after Blesi twice referenced his abuse of prior wives, and admission of the full fifteen-page transcript of Blesi’s August 7, 1985 statement to police.9
Whether the trial court erred in refusing appellant’s proposed instruction on abandonment?10
Under Wyo. Stat. § 6-1-301(b), abandonment is a defense only if the defendant avoided commission of the crime through voluntary and complete renunciation by abandoning the criminal effort before the attempt is complete.11 Once the actor has injured the victim, the attempt is complete and the defense is no longer available, as the point of no return has passed when substantial harm occurs.12
No. The rule requires that renunciation occur before the defendant puts in motion forces he is powerless to stop or inflicts injury on the victim.13 Ramirez stabbed Blesi nine times with an ice pick after tying her up and sexually assaulting her, causing two collapsed lungs and multiple puncture wounds. These injuries completed the criminal effort for attempted second degree murder, rendering the later ambulance call irrelevant to any abandonment defense.14
The trial court did not err in refusing the proposed abandonment instruction because the defense was unavailable once Ramirez injured Blesi.15
Whether the court erred in excluding the testimony of appellant’s expert witness?16
Under Rule 403, W.R.E., relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.17 A trial court’s ruling on admissibility is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be upheld unless the court exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.18
No. The rule permits exclusion when marginal relevance is outweighed by prejudice.19 Dr. Burdick’s testimony concerned a possible chlamydia diagnosis three days before the incident and was offered to suggest provocation or challenge credibility, yet the court found it remote from the August 4 events and potentially humiliating.20 Ramirez presented no subsequent evidence to increase its relevance, and the ruling stayed within reasonable bounds.21
The trial court did not err in excluding Dr. Burdick’s testimony.22
Whether the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after admission of prior bad acts evidence?23
Under Rule 404(b), W.R.E., evidence of other crimes or acts is inadmissible to prove character but may be admitted for purposes such as intent or to explain an inseparable part of the whole deed.24 A mistrial is an extreme remedy granted only for error so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and juries are presumed to follow limiting instructions.25
No. The rule allows admission of misconduct that forms an inseparable part of the charged episode when relevant to intent.26 Blesi’s testimony about the sexual assault was properly admitted as part of the four-hour ordeal. Her two references to prior wife abuse were improper but met with an immediate objection on the second occasion, a limiting instruction, and no motion to strike on the first; the court reasonably concluded the instruction cured any prejudice without requiring the drastic step of mistrial.27
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial.28
Whether the court erred in allowing a cumulative transcript into evidence over appellant’s objection?29
Under Rule 106, W.R.E., when part of a writing is introduced, an adverse party may require contemporaneous introduction of other parts needed for fairness and context.30 The entire document remains subject to Rule 403 and may be excluded if cumulative once the witness has testified fully and consistently.31
Yes. The rule permits completion only to the extent necessary for context, not wholesale admission of irrelevant material.32 Defense counsel cross-examined Officer Owen about selected portions of the fifteen-page August 7 statement.33 The court admitted the entire transcript, which summarized Blesi’s prior testimony, added nothing new, and was consistent with her trial account. This admission violated the cumulativeness objection under the facts of the case.34
The trial court erred in admitting the full cumulative transcript, but the error was harmless given the overwhelming properly admitted evidence of guilt.35
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas disagreed that admission of the transcript constituted error.36 He explained that defense counsel’s common tactic of introducing only favorable excerpts from a pre-trial statement risks misleading the jury by taking comments out of context and enabling arguments of fabrication or inconsistency.37 In this case the defense had skillfully questioned Officer Owen about selected portions of the August 7 statement after the August 4 statement had already been admitted in full.38
Thomas concluded that the district court acted within its discretion under Rule 106 to admit the entire fifteen-page document on redirect to restore proper context and prevent an unfair advantage to the accused.39