## Facts

- Charles Towner was charged with four counts of concealing stolen property after stolen items were found in the basement of his parents’ home, where he lived.
- Towner’s defense was lack of knowledge that the goods were stolen; he testified his wife brought the items home and said she had lawfully acquired them.
- At the start of the bench trial, the court entered an order sequestering witnesses.
- Towner intended to call his father and sister to testify that Towner’s wife had told them she purchased the items, corroborating Towner’s account on the knowledge element.
- During Towner’s testimony, the father and sister were observed in the courtroom in violation of the sequestration order.
- The trial judge excluded both witnesses, describing the proposed testimony as of doubtful relevance and cumulative of Towner’s testimony.
- It was later represented to the court that an agent from the prosecutor’s office had asked the father and sister to enter the courtroom; the court still excluded their testimony.
- Towner was convicted on all counts and appealed, challenging the exclusion as an improper sanction that impaired his ability to present a defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding defense witnesses for a sequestration-order violation when the violation was not willful and was not procured by the defendant or defense counsel.
2. Whether excluding corroborative defense testimony on a material element (knowledge that property was stolen) improperly curtailed the right to present a defense and was prejudicial.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the father and sister’s testimony.
- The court concluded the violation was not attributable to the defense and that complete exclusion was an excessively harsh sanction under the circumstances.
- The court rejected the view that the excluded testimony was merely cumulative, emphasizing its corroborative value on a contested element.
- The court determined the error was prejudicial and not harmless because the excluded corroboration could have affected the fact-finder’s assessment of credibility and guilt.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have discretion to enforce witness sequestration orders, but exclusion of testimony is a severe sanction subject to close appellate review for abuse of discretion.
- Excluding a witness for a sequestration violation is generally improper where the violation is not willful and is not procured, encouraged, or knowingly permitted by the party offering the witness.
- When a sequestration breach occurs without fault by the defendant or defense counsel, courts should consider less restrictive measures (e.g., cross-examination about the violation, limiting instructions, or sanctions directed at the violators) before barring testimony.
- Corroborative testimony supporting a defendant’s account on a material element is not properly dismissed as “cumulative” merely because it aligns with the defendant’s testimony; corroboration can be central to credibility.
- Excluding defense evidence affecting a material issue requires a showing that the exclusion did not prejudice the defense; when the evidence could influence the verdict, the error is not harmless.

## Conclusion

The court reversed because barring the defendant’s corroborating witnesses for a sequestration breach not caused by the defense was an unduly severe sanction that impaired the defense on a material element and could have affected the verdict.


Towner v. State, 685 P.2d 45 (Wyo. 1984)