Ryan v. State

Supreme Court of Wyoming · 1999 · Evidence

988 P.2d 46 (Wyo. 1999)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceW.R.E. 404(a)profile evidencebattered woman syndromeseparation violenceharmless errorchild witness competencyconfrontation clause

Facts

Police responding to a traced 911 call found Ryan shot in the chest and his wife Keri dead in a bedroom from a gunshot wound to the neck. The State introduced extensive evidence of Ryan's prior abuse, control, jealousy, and threats toward Keri, as well as expert testimony from Rosemary Bratton about battered woman syndrome and 'separation violence,' including that homicides often occur when a victim leaves an abusive relationship. Ryan challenged that expert testimony as improper character-based proof, and also challenged the competency of his five-year-old daughter Stephanie, remote testimony from another witness, and evidence obtained through a second search warrant.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony about 'separation violence' and batterer characteristics that effectively invited the jury to infer Ryan's guilt from a batterer profile, and whether any such error required reversal. The court also addressed whether other evidentiary, confrontation, jury-contact, warrant, and sentencing rulings warranted relief.

Rule

Under W.R.E. 404(a), evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion. Expert testimony that classifies a defendant within a group of persons sharing characteristics and implicitly invites the jury to infer guilt from that profile is inadmissible profile evidence, even if framed subtly rather than as a direct opinion on guilt. If such evidence is erroneously admitted, reversal is required only if there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a homicide trial in Casper, the prosecution calls a domestic-violence counselor. She testifies that when controlling partners believe a relationship is ending, they often escalate to lethal violence, and she then lists behaviors previously attributed to Damon Cross, including constant workplace calls, isolation, and jealous accusations.

If defense counsel objects that the testimony invites the jury to infer guilt from a batterer profile, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority drew a line between permissible testimony explaining victim behavior and impermissible testimony relating to the defendant that groups him with a class of batterers and implies he acted like them. Even subtle testimony can violate the character rule if it invites guilt by profile rather than by case-specific proof.