# Schmunk v. State

> Wyoming Supreme Court · February 13, 1986 · 714 P.2d 724

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539623

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert F. SCHMUNK, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
- **Court:** Wyoming Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 13, 1986
- **Citations:** 714 P.2d 724; 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 482
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thomas
- **Judges:** Brown, Cardine, Rooney, Rose, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539623

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- emphasizing the unique qualities of videotapes

## Opinion text

THOMAS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I join with Justice Rooney in his dissenting opinion. In the response to that dissenting opinion the majority opinion states that it presumes that the accused videotape was sent to the jury so that it might be viewed again in the course of the jury’s deliberations. The record does not encompass any objection by the appellant to the videotape being furnished to the jury with the other exhibits nor does the record contain any indication that the jury did view it during the course of its deliberations. The appellant has the responsibility of furnishing a record upon which any issue can be decided. Salt River Enterprises, Inc. v. Heiner, Wyo., 663 P.2d 518 (1983); Scherling v. Kilgore, Wyo., 599 P.2d 1352 (1979). *754 In the face of a silent record I cannot agree that this court is justified in speculating about what occurred in the course of the jury’s deliberations.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539623. Public record. Not legal advice.