Summary 2006 WY 25

Summary of Decision issued March 10, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Rabuck v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 25

Docket Number: 04-194

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Georgia L. Tibbets, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Erica A. Johnson, Director, PAP.

Date of Decision: March 10, 2006

Issue: Whether the indecent liberties statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105(a) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Appellant.

Holding: The constitutional challenge was reviewed de novo. A statute may be challenged for vagueness on its face or as applied to particular conduct. It is well settled that the indecent liberties statue is not facially unconstitutional. Viewed on an “as applied” basis, the Court examines the statute solely in light of the complainant’s specific conduct. Appellant contends the statute failed to provide sufficient notice of which aspect of his conduct was forbidden. The Court considered his behavior in its entirety. His efforts to conceal his conduct indicate his understanding that his conduct was unlawful. Decisions of the Court demonstrate that physical touching is not a required element of the crime of indecent liberties. The indecent liberties statute was drawn broadly to encompass a variety of behaviors from which children should be protected. Based on the stipulated record and the reasonable inferences to be drawn, the Court was comfortable concluding that sufficient evidence existed to support the district court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss. The Court concluded that the indecent liberties statute was not unconstitutionally applied and found no error in the denial of the motion to dismiss.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.
J. Voigt specially concurred out of deference to the doctrine of stare decisis.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/zu25h .