Summary 2006 WY 81

Summary of Decision issued July 11, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

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

Case Name: Lewis v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 81

Docket Number: 05-42

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender, and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Domonkos.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Nancy D. Conrad, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Conrad.

Date of Decision: July 11, 2006.

Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for first degree sexual assault. Whether the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.

Holding: The standard of review for insufficiency of the evidence to support first degree sexual assault has been clearly established in Wyoming case law. The Court must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court will not consider conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party; it is the jury’s responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence; and the Court will not substitute their own judgment for that of the jury. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed by referring to the entire record to determine whether a defendant’s case has been so prejudiced that he has been denied a fair trial. In December, 2004, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree sexual assault and incest.
Insufficiency of the evidence to support a first degree sexual assault: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-302(a)(i) applies. The evidence at trial established that the victim was four years old at the time of the assault and that Appellant and victim were in the bedroom at the time of the assault with the door closed. After considering the evidence presented at trial, the Court concluded that a jury could find that Appellant used force and forcible confinement to cause the victim to submit to the sexual intrusion. Regardless of the custom of the household, the door was closed on the night in question confining the victim to the bedroom. The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that the victim submitted to Appellant’s intrusions due to the fact that he was physically forcing her to do so and that he was forcibly confining her to the bedroom during the intrusion. The Court’s conclusions were bolstered by the inherent use of physical force or forcible confinement within every parent-child or caregiver-child relationship.
Appellant made an additional argument urging the Court to follow case law in other jurisdictions, holding that the fact that an assailant is positioned “over” the victim during a sexual intrusion is not sufficient to show the element of forcible confinement. Because the Court found that the closed door, discrepancy in age, size and strength, and the dynamics of the parent-child relationship are sufficient to uphold the jury’s verdict in the case, the Court declined to address that issue.
Prosecutorial misconduct: To find that the prosecutor did commit prosecutorial misconduct, the Court had to review the entire record and conclude that but for this statement by the prosecutor, Appellant would have received a more favorable verdict. The Court found that the evidence presented made it clear that Appellant was charged with sexual assault for the incident of oral sex with the victim. Given the clear message to the jury regarding the nature of the case, the prosecutor’s remarks were not so prejudicial that without them Appellant might have enjoyed a more favorable verdict.

C.J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Affirmed.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/nona9 .