Court Summaries
| Publication year | 2012 |
| Pages | 54 |
| Citation | Vol. 35 No. 5 Pg. 54 |
P. Craig Silva Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C.
William R. Fix v. South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Association
July 12, 2012
S-11-0260
This case presents numerous issues; however, the most notable is whether the cost of legal research is a recoverable element of an attorneys fee award. In other words, when seeking attorneys fees, can the attorney seek both the time spent by the lawyer researching the topic and the cost of the online service during the research period? The general rule is that type of double dipping is not allowed. Legal research is a component of attorneys' fees and cannot be taxed as a separate element of costs. The rationale is that legal research is included in the attorneys hourly rate as an overhead cost; consequently, it should not be separately recoverable as a cost. In this case, the cost associated with the legal research was deducted from the overall attorney's fee and cost award.
Donald E. Inman v. State of Wyoming
August 7, 2012
S-11-0211
This case involves the issue of the admission of lay opinion testimony through a police officer regarding where a crime scene was located. Mr. Inman was charged and convicted of aggravated assault. Mr. Inman moved to Gillette, Wyoming, with his wife and child. When he arrived, he lived with his wife's brother Jerrod Wilson, Mr. Wilson's girlfriend, and their two children.
On September 17, 2010, Mr. Inman and Mr. Wilson went to a bar where they became intoxicated. While at the bar, Mr. Inman told Mr. Wilson that he had broken Mr. Wilson's sister's nose, had beaten her up previously, and committed adultery. The testimony quoted in the opinion makes it sound as if Mr. Inman was bragging about his conduct. The two then left the bar and went back to Mr. Wilson's home. Mr. Wilson's sister and Mr. Inman got into a fight, and Wilson ordered Inman out of the apartment. Mr. Wilson left and went down to the dumpster area near the home where he began to get cold. Wilson yelled up to Inman requesting a jacket, but Wilson refused to throw one down.
It is at this point that the testimony goes in different directions. According to Mr. Inman, Mr. Wilson came up the stairs to the second floor apartment, began kicking the door and yelling and screaming. At that point, Mr. Wilson feared for his life, opened the door and chased Mr. Inman down the stairs. At the landing between the two floors Mr. Wilson turned and attacked Mr. Inman, where Mr. Inman defended himself by hitting Mr. Wilson in the head with a pipe. Mr. Wilson claims the altercation occurred on the first floor. According to Mr. Wilson, when he entered the building, Mr. Inman was waiting for him with the pipe.
This dichotomy in testimony presented an issue at trial and fodder for the defense. The State intended to have the investigating officer testify that it was her opinion that the altercation occurred on the first floor based on the evidence gathered at the scene. A liminal motion was filed by the defense to exclude such lay opinion testimony. The critical testimony by the officer was that "The blood trail went all the way through the door. There was blood on the door and on the doorjamb. Blood in the hall entryway and up to the bottom step of [the] first set of steps." This quote was interpreted to mean that the crime occurred where Mr. Wilson described it, not where Mr. Inman described it. In other words, the altercation occurred on the first floor, not on the landing between the first and second floors. This was the opinion given by the officer at trial. The trial court admitted the evidence, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
The Wyoming Supreme Court recognized that under W.R.E. 702, a lay witness can give opinion testimony when it is perceived firsthand and rationally based on perception. The lay opinion should only be excluded if the observation is inadequate to support the con- e lusion. However, lay opinion is not a substitute for a diluted version of expert opinion. If the opinion is truly expert opinion, then the witness must qualify as an expert; that is, if the experience goes beyond the knowledge of the average person, then it is expert opinion. All the officer did here was testify regarding a common sense conclusion based on her...
To continue reading
Request your trial