 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Seeley v. State5/22/1998
y, the DCI agent assigned to the case arrived at the police station and continued to search the Blazer. A box of plastic sandwich bags similar to the drug packages were found in the luggage compartment. Learning that Eisele had called the police station looking for Ellis, the agent interviewed Eisele and then went to the motel to talk with Seeley. When the agent informed Seeley that cocaine had been found in the backpack, Seeley admitted he owned the backpack but denied ownership of the drugs.
Tests on the substance found in the packages returned positive for the presence of cocaine. Seeley was required to submit a urine sample which also tested positive for cocaine. Although the substance found in the backpack could not be directly connected to the cocaine consumed by Seeley, there was testimony that Seeley's consumption would likely have been within two to four days of testing.
On August 28 and 29, 1996, Seeley was tried before a jury on one count of felony possession of a controlled substance. At the close of the State's case, Seeley moved for a judgment of acquittal, contending the State had failed to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction. The district court denied the motion.
At some point during deliberation, the jury notified the district court that it was having difficulty reaching a verdict. Although there is a dispute as to what actually occurred, it is uncontested that the district court sent Instruction No. 15 to the jury room during deliberation without bringing the jury into the courtroom. Less than two hours after receiving this instruction, the jury returned with a verdict finding Seeley guilty of the charged offense. The jurors were then individually polled to confirm their agreement with the verdict.
After securing the services of a new attorney, Seeley filed two post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal. The first motion sought a judgment of acquittal due to error in the instruction of the jury. The motion was supported by Seeley's affidavit alleging that, upon information from his trial counsel, the district court submitted Instruction No. 15 without allowing his counsel the opportunity to object, and the instruction was given outside the presence of Seeley and his counsel.
In response, the State took issue with factual allegations found in Seeley's affidavit and attached a page of the trial transcript, which states:
(Whereupon the Jury retired to the jury room to begin deliberations at 11:15 a.m.)
(Whereupon while the Jury was involved in deliberations Jury Instruction Number 15 was stipulated to by counsel and in the presence of the official court reporter to be submitted to the Jury panel.)
(Whereupon the following proceedings commenced at 6:18 p.m. in open court.)
[The jury returned with its verdict]
(Emphasis added.)
Seeley's second post-trial motion alleged lack of evidence, the same motion heard and rejected by the district court at the close of the State's case. The district court denied both posttrial motions without a hearing on September 26, 1996. In its order, the district court specifically found that prior to sending Instruction No. 15 to the jury, the district court consulted with counsel for Seeley and the State, and both counsel stipulated to the instruction. The district court further found that it would have given the instruction despite objection from either party and that Seeley was not prejudiced thereby.
Seeley was sentenced on November 1, 1996 to serve not less than five nor more than seven years at the Wyoming State Penitentiary. On the same day Seeley was
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|