Motion for new trial filed in Spence case

In a case against Justin Spence, who was found guilty of incest on April 27, a motion has been filed for a new trial. According to the charge, on July 4 or 5, 2014, Spence molested a juvenile female.

During a trial that lasted three days, it was shown the juvenile and Spence had been texting the date of the incident — over 200 messages sent between the two phones within a few hours — and Spence had been sending inappropriate messages and pictures prior to physical advances on the juvenile.

Also presented during the trial was the juvenile’s relationship with another male subject, and how the charges were brought against Spence in an effort to divert attention away from the other male.

According to the allegations in the motion for a new trial, the State of Wyoming filed several pre-trial memorandums and failed to designate anyone as an expert, nor to provide any advance knowledge of their intent to do so. Neither the expert qualification information nor reports used to base an opinion were provided to Spence at any time.

At trial, the State of Wyoming allegedly offered the juveniles most recent counselor as an expert, he was “qualified” in open court in front of the jury with zero advance notice to Spence, and he was allowed to render an opinion and to bolster and/or vouch for the credibility of the juvenile. That lack of proper notice would violate Spence’s due process right under both Wyoming and Federal constitutions and was essentially “trial by ambush.”

It’s also alleged the opinion of the “expert” was highly prejudicial and not probative to the relevant facts and amounted to bolstering the testimony of the juvenile. Even if properly notified of the intent to offer this testimony and assuming it was relevant, the motion states, such relevancy would be outweighed by the prejudice to Spence in cloaking her current testimony with the stamp of approval of an “expert.”

The State of Wyoming also allegedly elicited an administrative “finding” from a Department of Family Services (DFS) employee. Spence did not participate in the finding, the motion states, and the evidence was not relevant, highly prejudicial and served no purpose in a trial before a jury other than an attempt to influence that Wyoming DFS had made, essentially, a finding of “guilt” on Spence’s part. This is not a case of the witness volunteering this information, as it was elicited by the prosecution.

Finally, the motion alleges Spence was left with the option of requesting a limiting instruction, which was given but could not undue the nature of the testimony that should not have been heard by the jury, and Spence believes the instruction should have asked the jury to disregard this evidence as it held no relevance to their determination.

Not date has been set for a hearing on the new trial motion, or a sentencing. Spence faces the possibility of 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.