Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County The Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge Representing Appellant:
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Voigt, Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] The appellant, Billie Colleen Johnson, was convicted of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine. On appeal, she claims that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the Confidential Informant (CI) to testify, although the appellant was not given the CI's telephone number. She also argues that the district court violated her constitutional rights when it considered the appellant's failure to take responsibility for her criminal activity at sentencing. We affirm.
[¶2] 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it allowed the CI to testify at trial, even though the CI's telephone number was not provided to defense counsel?
2. Did the district court violate the appellant's right to a jury trial when it considered the appellant's failure to accept responsibility for her criminal conduct at sentencing?
[¶3] In June 2010, a CI working with the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) called the appellant to arrange the purchase of two grams of methamphetamine. A DCI agent fitted the CI with a wire, and the CI drove to a home in Campbell County where he met with the appellant. The CI gave the appellant $400 and in exchange received two grams of methamphetamine in a zip-loc baggie. The CI took the methamphetamine to the DCI office and an agent paid him $100 for his cooperation and assistance.
[¶4] A few days later, the CI contacted the appellant again about purchasing methamphetamine. The CI met the appellant outside of a bar, where the appellant gave the CI a tennis ball that contained a baggie filled with methamphetamine. The CI then took the tennis ball to the DCI office, and was again compensated $100 for his cooperation. The appellant was charged with two counts of delivery of methamphetamine. A jury found the appellant guilty of both counts, and the district court sentenced her to four-to-seven-years imprisonment.
Did the district court abuse its discretion when it allowed the CI to testify at trial, even though the CI's telephone number was not provided to defense counsel?
[¶5] The appellant challenges the district court's decision to allow the CI to testify at trial because, although defense counsel knew the CI's name well before the trial began, the CI's telephone number was not provided to defense counsel. We will not disturb a district court's decision on whether to allow particular evidence or testimony at trial absent an abuse of discretion. Boykin v. State, 2005 WY 15, ¶ 5, 105 P.3d 481, 482 (Wyo. 2005). "An abuse of discretion occurs when it is shown the trial court reasonably could not have concluded as it did." Id. at ¶ 5, at 482-83.
[¶6] As routinely done in criminal cases, the district court entered a criminal case management order, which contained the deadlines and dates for various matters in the case. That order required the parties to disclose, no less than three working days before the pretrial conference, a list of trial witnesses with a summary of the expected testimony. In response to that order, the State informed the appellant that it planned to call a witness identified as "Confidential Informant" who "may testify regarding his/her relationship with the [appellant], his/her knowledge of the facts surrounding the case, and any and all other matters ...