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

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2010 WY 97

Summary of Decision issued July 12, 2010

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

Case Name: Bloomfield, Jr. v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 97

Docket Number: S-09-0033

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge.

Representing Bloomfield: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Bloomfield appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree murder. He contended the jury was improperly instructed on the elements of the crime. He also challenged the district court?s evidentiary ruling regarding evidence that he now contends was offered for the purpose of establishing the victim was the first aggressor in the altercation. He asserted the rejection of that evidence undermined his claim of self defense.

Jury instruction: In this case, the instructions satisfy the two-step inquiry articulated in Reilly. When viewed as a whole, the instructions required the jury to find that Bloomfield intended to take a substantial step toward second-degree murder ? in other words, he intended to perform the act of stabbing the victim. The jury then had to find that Bloomfield stabbed the victim ?purposely? and ?maliciously.? ?Intent to kill? is not an element of the underlying crime of second-degree murder. The district court did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it did not include that element in the jury instructions.
Bloomfield also challenged the jury instructions because they combined the elements of attempt and second-degree murder into one instruction. As the Court noted in Gentilini, a jury instruction is not given in error simply because it combines the elements of two crimes. The test of adequate jury instructions is whether the instructions leave no doubt as to the circumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed. Bloomfield asserted that by giving one instruction with the elements of both second-degree murder and attempt, the district court effectively eliminated the specific intent to kill form the required elements of the crime. As noted, specific intent to kill is not an element of the crime of attempted second-degree murder.
W.R.E.404(a)(2) evidence: Bloomfield claimed the district court erred in refusing evidence offered by the defense. Bloomfield contended that the district court erred when it limited witness testimony to impeachment purposes. He asserted the testimony should have been admitted under W.R.E. 404(a)(2) as proof that the victim was the first aggressor. In Pack the Court stated the offer of proof must indicate the purpose of the testimony. Defense counsel did not apprise the court that he sought admission of the evidence under W.R.E. 404(a)(2) nor did he argue the evidence supported a theory that the victim was the first aggressor and never mentioned Bloomfield?s theory of self defense.

Conclusion: Bloomfield failed to demonstrate any likelihood that the verdict would have been more favorable had the district court allowed the evidence.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/28ljl8j .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on July 15, 2010 (boomark / email).