Summary 2006 WY 134

Summary of Decision issued October 19, 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.]

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

Case Name: Stokes v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 134

Docket Number: 05-195

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant attorney General and Dee Morgan, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105 is unconstitutionally vague, both “facially” and “as applied” to his conduct.

Holding: The victim, sixteen years old, began dating Appellant, twenty-one years old, when she was a junior in high school. The victim’s mother learned of the relationship and demanded termination of it. When Mother found out that Appellant and victim had a sexual relationship, she reported it to police. Appellant admitted to a sexual relationship with the victim and that he knew it was against “the rule”. A jury found Appellant guilty of taking “immoral” liberties with a 16 year old girl in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105. The district court sentenced Appellant to three to five years imprisonment but suspended execution of that sentence in favor of probation.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews constitutional questions de novo. Because Appellant did not raise the issue of constitutionality in district court, the Court’s review is confined to a search for plain error.
“Facially”: A statute is facially vague if it reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct or if it specifies no standard of conduct at all. The Court then listed the cases where it soundly rejected vagueness challenges to § 14-3-105, including: Moe, Giles, Pierson, Moore, Lovato, Ochoa, Griego, and Sorenson.
“As applied”: When a statute is challenged on an “as applied” basis, the Court must determine whether the statute provides sufficient notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that his conduct is illegal and whether the facts of the case demonstrate arbitrary enforcement. Appellant complained that the statute was vague in that it did not describe with particularity what acts were forbidden. This is the same argument presented to the Court in Giles which the majority of the Court found unpersuasive. The Court has held that the meaning of the terms “immoral”, "immodest”, and “indecent” is sufficiently clear. Further, in Moe, consensual sex with a sixteen-year-old was previously determined to violate the statute. Although Appellant briefly mentions the lack of an extreme age difference as a mitigating factor, he admits he understood that his conduct was wrong and that he should have waited until the victim was eighteen years of age.
Concurrence: C.J. Voigt concurred in the result of the majority opinion out of deference to the doctrine of stare decisis.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the order for the court with a special concurrence from C.J. Voigt.

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