## Facts

- A confidential informant contacted Ben Martinez seeking to buy morphine.
- The informant wore a wire, and agents recorded several phone calls between the informant and Martinez.
- Martinez told the informant he could obtain five to ten vials of morphine at $200 per vial.
- Martinez and the informant agreed to meet and drive together to Martinez’s source so the informant could purchase the morphine.
- While traveling, Martinez stopped multiple times to call the source.
- Martinez eventually decided to leave the informant at a convenience store and go to the source alone.
- Martinez took the purchase money the informant had brought for the transaction and left to meet the source by himself.
- Martinez returned without morphine and told the informant he chose not to go to the source because he saw police officers following him.
- Police arrested Martinez at that point.
- Wyoming charged Martinez with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and attempting to deliver a controlled substance.
- A jury convicted Martinez on both counts, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Martinez’s incriminating statements made after arrest but before Miranda warnings were voluntary and therefore admissible.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and attempted delivery of a controlled substance.
3. Whether Martinez was denied effective assistance of counsel.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Martinez’s convictions.
- The court held that Martinez’s post-arrest statements made before Miranda warnings were admissible because they were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- The court held that the trial evidence was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Martinez conspired to deliver morphine and took a substantial step toward delivery.
- The court rejected Martinez’s ineffective-assistance claim because he did not show constitutionally deficient performance and resulting prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Statements made in custody before Miranda warnings are not automatically excluded; admissibility still turns on whether the statement was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and not the product of coercion.
- Voluntariness depends on whether law enforcement conduct overcame the defendant’s ability to make a free and independent choice; factors include the manner of questioning, the setting, and the presence or absence of threats, promises, or physical or psychological pressure.
- Conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance requires proof of an agreement to commit the unlawful delivery and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement; both may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
- Criminal attempt requires proof of intent to commit the target offense and conduct constituting a substantial step toward completing it, going beyond mere preparation.
- On sufficiency review, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and asks whether any rational jury could find the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without the errors.

## Conclusion

In Martinez v. Wyoming, the court affirmed Martinez’s convictions for conspiring to deliver morphine and attempting to deliver morphine because his pre-Miranda statements after arrest were voluntary, the recorded calls and his conduct with the informant supported findings of an agreement and substantial steps toward delivery, and he failed to prove ineffective assistance under the governing constitutional test.


Martinez v. Wyoming, 943 P.2d 1178 (1997)