Padilla v. State

601 P.2d 189 (Wyo. 1979)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

At the trial, D did not contest the fact that the acts complained of did occur. The defense was based on the contention that the acts were voluntary on the part of victim and not accomplished through force on the part of D. On cross, D asked the victim about her testimony in the preliminary hearing and if she knew D. P objected arguing that the transcript should be used. D made the point that the transcript did not exist. The trial court sustained the objection. D made no further reference to the issue. D was convicted and appealed. D contends the objection should not have been sustained because the question was enough to impeach the witness. P contends that the issue was not properly preserved for consideration on appeal under 103(a)(2). D contends that the offer of proof by itself served the direct function of calling the trial court to the nature of the error.