## Facts

- Roy Dale Ryan was charged with second-degree murder after fatally shooting his wife, Keri Ryan, and then shooting himself; he called 911 from the scene.
- The marriage involved extensive domestic violence, including controlling and isolating behavior and repeated physical abuse, much of which Ryan largely admitted.
- At trial, the State offered lay testimony describing Ryan’s prior abuse and Keri’s efforts to separate from him.
- The State also called an expert who testified about patterns associated with battering relationships, including increased violence during separation and the likelihood of gun violence.
- The jury convicted Ryan of second-degree murder, and the district court imposed a definite term of imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s voir dire remark stating Ryan was present “because he murdered his wife” denied a fair trial.
2. Whether the court erred in denying a mistrial after a juror reported being threatened and having her car damaged and shared that information with other jurors.
3. Whether allowing testimony from a witness who was five at the time of the incident was error due to alleged lack of capacity to perceive and remember.
4. Whether admitting expert testimony describing batterers’ common traits and risks of lethal violence constituted improper propensity/profile evidence.
5. Whether evidence obtained under a challenged search warrant should have been excluded on due process and jurisdictional grounds.
6. Whether permitting remote testimony violated the Confrontation Clause where the jury and accused could not fully observe the witness’s demeanor and the witness could not see the accused.
7. Whether a security officer’s communication with the jury about the timing of a verdict denied due process.
8. Whether a definite (rather than indeterminate) sentence for second-degree murder was illegal.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the expert’s testimony operated as impermissible “batterer profile” evidence and was therefore erroneous.
- The court concluded the profiling error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because independent evidence of Ryan’s abuse and the State’s proof of guilt were strong.
- The court rejected the remaining claims, finding no reversible error in the voir dire comment, handling of the juror incident, child-witness competency ruling, search-warrant admission, remote testimony procedure, security-officer contact, or the sentence imposed.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony that effectively profiles a defendant as fitting a class of offenders and invites a propensity inference is improper character evidence.
- Evidentiary error may be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the remaining evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error did not affect the verdict.
- Trial-court rulings on mistrial motions and alleged juror misconduct are reviewed for abuse of discretion and require a showing of actual prejudice to warrant reversal.
- Child-witness competency determinations are committed to the trial court’s discretion based on the child’s ability to perceive, remember, and relate events.
- Confrontation rights focus on the opportunity for effective cross-examination; departures from face-to-face testimony may be upheld when reliability and adversarial testing are preserved and no prejudice is shown.
- A sentence is illegal only if it exceeds statutory authorization or violates constitutional limits; a sentence within the governing statute is not illegal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Ryan’s second-degree murder conviction and definite sentence, holding that expert “batterer profile” testimony was improperly admitted but did not require reversal because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and the remaining alleged trial and sentencing errors did not prejudice Ryan’s right to a fair trial.


Ryan v. State, 988 P.2d 46 (Wyo. 1999)