from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable
Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge
of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public
Defender; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate
Counsel. Argument by Mr. Westling.
K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath,
Deputy Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior
Assistant Attorney General; Caitlin F. Young, Assistant
Attorney General; Kathryn A. Adams, Assistant Attorney
General. Argument by Ms. Adams.
BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
Appellant Skuyler Salinas asks us to set aside his stalking
conviction. He claims the district court erred in not
granting a mistrial and in not imposing a stiffer sanction
for a discovery violation. We affirm.
1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by not
granting a mistrial for a violation of an order in
limine concerning W.R.E. 404(b) evidence?
the district court abuse its discretion by imposing a
discovery sanction that precluded the State from introducing
untimely disclosed text messages but allowing the jury to
hear testimony about them?
Appellant and Ashley Martinez's relationship ended a year
after their daughter, L.S., was born. After some time had
passed, an incident occurred in Fort Collins, Colorado. While
Ms. Martinez, her date, and L.S. were stopped at a traffic
light, Appellant, who apparently had been following them,
came over and began punching her car and yelling at them. Ms.
Martinez was eventually able to drive off, call the police,
and get to the police station.
The next day, Ms. Martinez obtained a temporary ex-parte
stalking order of protection. After a hearing was held a few
days later, an order of protection valid for six months was
issued. That order forbade Appellant from contacting Ms.
Martinez and certain members of her family. Appellant
repeatedly violated the order by texting Ms. Martinez.
Appellant was tried on one count of felony stalking for
violating the protective order. As the case proceeded toward
trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce
evidence pursuant to W.R.E. 404(b). It disclosed that it
intended to introduce evidence of Appellant's misconduct
and interactions with Ms. Martinez and her family members
that occurred outside the scope of the charged date range.
Appellant objected and a hearing was held, after which the
district court excluded much of the evidence sought to be
introduced by the State by an order in limine.
[¶6] However, the court allowed the State to present
evidence concerning the details of four separate incidents,
including the Fort Collins event that led to the protective
orders. However, the district court's order precluded
witnesses from testifying that Appellant "was arrested,
charged or pled guilty to any crime."
Appellant also filed a motion to compel certain specific
discovery. In particular, he asked that the court require the
State to produce Ms. Martinez's father David