Inclusion of Prior PSI Information: Affirming Judicial Discretion in Presentence Investigations

Introduction

The case of Cameron Curtis Hagen v. The State of Wyoming (2025 WY 22) presents a dispute arising out of a defendant’s challenge to the contents of his Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) during sentencing. Mr. Hagen, who had pleaded no contest to drug and firearm charges as part of a plea agreement, objected to detailed entries in the criminal history section of his PSI. He contended that these entries were improperly compiled by relying on previous PSIs and police reports – allegedly violating provisions of the Wyoming Criminal History Record Act. The district court, while noting his objections, ultimately declined to strike the contested portions and proceeded with a sentence that was consistent with the plea agreement. This commentary examines the background, key legal issues, court findings, and the broader impact of the decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wyoming, in affirming the district court’s decision, held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to excise the challenged details from the PSI. The key issue was not whether the Criminal Record Act had been violated by the author of the PSI, but rather whether the district court’s decision to disregard some contested elements during sentencing was proper. Citing precedents such as NOLLER v. STATE and JANSSEN v. STATE, the court found that there was no requirement under existing procedural rules or statutes to limit the PSI’s criminal history section solely to independently verified court records. The court underscored that information obtained from reputable sources like NCIC, WY CJIS, and prior official documents is integral to formulating a comprehensive view of a defendant’s background, which is crucial for informed sentencing decisions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision draws heavily on several earlier cases that clarify the permissible scope of information included in a PSI:

Barela v. State (2017 WY 66): This case was cited by the State to argue that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over challenges concerning access to records under the Criminal Record Act when raised in a criminal case context. Though relevant to issues of record access, the court in the present case distinguished Hagen’s argument from a record access challenge. Rather, the focus here was on whether the district court erred in refusing to expunge contested details from the PSI.
NOLLER v. STATE (2010 WY 30): In Noller, the court addressed similar objections regarding the admissibility of comments and entries in a PSI. The court in the current decision referenced Noller to emphasize that even if certain PSI content is objectionable or perceived as influenced by prior records, the sentencing court retains discretion provided the challenged information has not materially prejudiced the defendant’s rights.
JANSSEN v. STATE (2005 WY 123): Janssen underlined that evidence of prior criminal activity is relevant in sentencing decisions – even when based on information not resulting in a prosecution or conviction. This principle supports the district court’s reliance on historical data from various sources when determining an appropriate sentence.
DOHERTY v. STATE (2006 WY 39): The Doherty decision reinforced that objections to portions of a PSI must be supported by evidence that the sentencing court’s decision was influenced by those prejudicial details. Here again, Hagen failed to show any detrimental impact from the contested PSI entries.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was anchored in both statutory authority and established procedural rules:

Scope of the Criminal Record Act: While Mr. Hagen argued that including details from prior PSIs and police reports violated the Criminal Record Act, the court clarified that this statute does not contain an absolute prohibition against using information from such sources. Instead, statutes such as Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-303 and Rule 32 of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly empower probation and parole officers to compile the criminal history section using comprehensive and reputable data.
Discretion in Sentencing: The court reaffirmed the principle that a sentencing decision will not be disturbed unless it is shown there has been an abuse of discretion or prejudice impacting the defendant’s substantial rights. In this instance, despite Hagen’s objections, the record demonstrates that the district court conscientiously considered his concerns and clearly articulated its decision to not rely on the contested information when determining his sentence.
Reliance on Historical Data: The court explained that accuracy and comprehensiveness in a PSI are paramount. By utilizing information from NCIC, WY CJIS, and previous PSIs, the court ensured that the sentencing decision was informed by a full record of the defendant’s past criminal activity, supporting the dual aims of individualized sentencing and public safety.

Impact

This judgment has important implications for future cases involving the content of presentence investigation reports. Key impacts include:

Clarification of Statutory Interpretation: The ruling makes clear that the Criminal Record Act does not preclude the use of historical data from previous PSIs and police reports in preparing a defendant’s criminal history for sentencing purposes.
Judicial Discretion: The decision affirms that sentencing courts possess wide latitude in determining which pieces of information are considered during sentencing. As long as any contested evidence is not the sole basis for a decision, a judge’s discretion will typically be upheld.
Guidance for Defense Counsel: Defense attorneys are reminded that objections to PSI content must be accompanied by evidence that such content materially prejudices the defendant’s rights. Mere assertions that certain data might harm future prospects—such as parole or detention facility placement—do not meet the threshold for amendment.
Uniformity in PSI Preparation: By endorsing a comprehensive approach to gathering criminal history information, the ruling supports uniform standards in PSI compilation, ensuring that sentencing decisions rest on a robust factual record.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment touches on several complex legal concepts which may warrant a brief explanation:

Presentence Investigation Report (PSI): A PSI is a report prepared prior to sentencing that contains detailed information about a defendant’s criminal history, personal background, and other relevant data. It is used by the court to determine an appropriate sentence.
Criminal Record Act: Although this Act sets limits on the nature of criminal history record information, it does not restrict a sentencing official from using comprehensive and cross-referenced data from various authoritative sources.
Judicial Discretion: This legal principle allows a judge to make decisions based on the merits of a case. In sentencing, discretionary power means that unless there is clear evidence of fairness issues or an abuse of power, the court’s evaluation of testimony and documentation will be respected.
Faretta Hearing: A Faretta hearing is held when a defendant chooses to represent him/herself. It confirms that this decision is made knowingly and voluntarily, ensuring the defendant understands the disadvantages of self-representation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in declining to strike the contested portions of Mr. Hagen’s PSI. The judgment solidifies the rule that compiling a criminal history section using data from multiple reputable sources—including prior PSIs and police reports—is consistent with statutory and procedural requirements. The decision serves as an important precedent for ensuring that sentencing determinations are founded on comprehensive, reliable information, reinforcing both judicial discretion and the integrity of the presentence investigation process.