# Lancaster v. State > Wyoming Supreme Court · March 28, 2002 · 43 P.3d 80 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795719 ## Case - **Full name:** James LANCASTER, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) - **Court:** Wyoming Supreme Court - **Decided:** March 28, 2002 - **Citations:** 43 P.3d 80; 2002 WY 45; 2002 Wyo. LEXIS 49; 2002 WL 464922 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Lehman - **Judges:** Lehman, Golden, Hill, Kite, Voigt - **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Jones v. State, 439 P.3d 753 (2019). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795719 ## Opinion text LEHMAN, Chief Justice, dissenting. [187] I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that the introduction of the Hanson videotape into evidence was error. I do not agree, however, that a "massive amount of evidence" exists to support the majority's conclusion that the error was harmless. [188] The facts set forth in the majority opinion discuss the contrasting stories of the appellant and the only witness, Hanson. The "massive amount of evidence" referred to by the majority is simply the physical evidence at the scene of the erime. No one other than Hanson and the appellant testified as having actually observed the events that transpired on the evening in question. Therefore, it was the videotape, which the judge instructed the jury was for the "limited purposes of evaluating the eredibility of the declarant, Mr. Hanson," that provided the jury a court-approved vehicle to examine for a second time Hanson's versions of the events. This bolstering of Hanson's credibility certainly cannot be dismissed as harmless error in a trial that amounted to a "swearing match" between Hanson and the appellant. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795719. Public record. Not legal advice.