Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S–13–0186.,S–13–0186. |
| Citation | 327 P.3d 89 |
| Parties | Kyle Joseph ANDERSON, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Alden.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer E. Zissou, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Zissou.
Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, BURKE, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.
[¶ 1] A jury found Kyle Joseph Anderson guilty of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, and he appeals. He argues that the prosecutor's manipulation of the rules resulted in judge-shopping which deprived him of his constitutional right to due process. He also contends that the jury was given confusing and conflicting jury instructions regarding venue, which were compounded by the prosecutor's misstatements of the law, and that venue was not established in Sweetwater County. We affirm.
[¶ 2] 1. Did the prosecutor's tactics amount to judge-shopping so as to deprive the appellant of his right to due process?
2. Was the jury correctly instructed regarding venue?
3. Did the evidence establish that venue in Sweetwater County was proper?
4. Did the prosecutor's misstatement of the law regarding venue in her closing argument constitute reversible error?
[¶ 3] Mr. Anderson boarded a Greyhound bus in Denver, Colorado, and sat next to B.P., an unaccompanied fifteen-year-old girl, who was travelling from Kansas to Oregon. Mr. Anderson became “touchy-feely” and got into B.P.'s “space.” When B.P. feigned sleep, Mr. Anderson reached in her shorts and “stroked” her vagina on top of her underwear for “10 to 15 seconds.” She kept her eyes closed for another thirty minutes, and when she opened her eyes, Mr. Anderson again became “touchy-feely.” Another passenger noticed B.P.'s discomfort and forced Mr. Anderson to move to the front of the bus. When the bus arrived in Rock Springs, one of the passengers contacted 911. Officers from the Rock Springs Police Department responded, along with Deputy Wallendorff of the Sweetwater County Sheriff's Office. After speaking with B.P., Deputy Wallendorff located Mr. Anderson and initiated a conversation which eventually led to his arrest.
[¶ 4] There was conflicting testimony regarding where the bus was when the touching occurred. The bus driver testified that she left Denver at 2:30 a.m. and stopped in Laramie, Wyoming, for a fifteen minute break. After leaving Laramie at 4:15 a.m., the bus drove west, pulling through the truck stop in Rawlins, Wyoming, to look for passengers at 7:00 a.m. There were no passengers in Rawlins and the bus continued west without stopping and arrived in Rock Springs at 9:00 a.m. The driver testified that the bus traveled at a continuous speed of 68 miles per hour.
[¶ 5] Deputy Wallendorff testified at trial that, although the crime occurred on the bus traveling between Rawlins and Rock Springs, he was unable to pinpoint exactly where it occurred. B.P., who is not a resident of Wyoming, testified that after Mr. Anderson stopped touching her vagina, she continued to pretend to be asleep for “about 30 more minutes.” On cross-examination, she said that the timeframe was “30 or 45 minutes.” When she opened her eyes at “probably about 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning,” she was not sure where she was. Shortly thereafter, one of the passengers confronted Mr. Anderson and forced him to move to the front of the bus. The passenger said that between thirty minutes and one hour elapsed between this confrontation and the stop in Rock Springs. B.P. testified that she did not remember how much time elapsed from the time she opened her eyes to her arrival in Rock Springs. When defense counsel asked B.P. if she had previously said that this took about two hours, she replied “I'm not sure about the times, but yeah, probably.”
[¶ 6] Mr. Anderson was charged on July 20, 2012, in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, with three violations: third-degree sexual abuse of a minor in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–316(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2013), third-degree sexual assault in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–304(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2013), and misdemeanor possession of marijuana in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35–7–1031(c)(i)(A) (LexisNexis 2013).
[¶ 7] The case was assigned to Judge James, and Mr. Anderson was arraigned on August 1, 2012. He entered not guilty pleas, and the case was set for a jury trial on November 5, 2012. Mr. Anderson filed a motion to suppress statements he had made to law enforcement officers without having been informed of his rights under Miranda. At the conclusion of the October 30, 2012 hearing on the motion to suppress, Judge James gave her oral ruling suppressing the use of Mr. Anderson's statements to law enforcement.
[¶ 8] Four days before trial, the State requested a continuance, stating it was having difficulties contacting witnesses. When asked about her diligence in contacting the witnesses, the prosecutor responded, “I don't know that I can answer that today, your honor.” Judge James denied the motion for continuance.
[¶ 9] The next day, the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. Judge James signed the order dismissing the case without prejudice the same day. Also on the same day, the State refiled the same three charges in a new docket. Mr. Anderson was bound over on that refiled case on November 9, 2012. The case was once again assigned to Judge James. On November 16, 2012, the prosecutor filed a motion for the peremptory disqualification of Judge James, and the case was assigned to Judge Lavery.
[¶ 10] Mr. Anderson filed a new motion to suppress, asserting that Judge James' Miranda ruling should still be binding as “law of the case.” At the January 17 hearing on Mr. Anderson's motion to suppress, the prosecutor asserted that the suppression ruling by Judge James was not effective in the newly-filed case. “This is not the same case, it's filed anew, and so I don't believe law of the case applies.” On January 24, 2013, Judge Lavery held a hearing on Mr. Anderson's motion to suppress, and issued his order denying the motion.1
[¶ 11] The case proceeded to trial on the charge of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor (the State had dismissed the two other charges). At trial, the State played a portion of Mr. Anderson's interview with the police, the subject of Mr. Anderson's motion to suppress.
[¶ 12] The jury received, among others, the following instructions:
The law raises no presumption against the defendant but rather, the presumption of law is in favor of his innocence. In order to convict the defendant of the crime charged, every material and necessary element to constitute such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the jury has a reasonable doubt on any necessary element, it is your duty to give the benefit of such doubt to the defendant and acquit him.
The elements of the crime of Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Third Degree, as charged in Count I of this case, are:
1. On or about the 18th day of July, 2012
2. In Sweetwater County, Wyoming
3. The Defendant, KYLE JOSEPH ANDERSON
4. Who was seventeen (17) years of age or older
5. Engaged in sexual contact with B.P.; and
6. B.P. was between the ages of thirteen (13) and fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the sexual contact; and
7. B.P. was at least four (4) years younger than the Defendant.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty.
If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty.
You are instructed that an offense shall be prosecuted in the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. When the location of the offense cannot be established with certainty, then an offense may be prosecuted in any county where the essential facts comprising the crime are discovered, or in any county in which the alleged victim was transported. For purposes of these instructions, when the location of the offense cannot be established with certainty, an offense takes place in Sweetwater County if the essential facts comprising the crime are discovered in Sweetwater County or if B.P. was transported through Sweetwater County.
Mr. Anderson objected to Instruction 15 prior to it being given to the jury, saying “I think that a special verdict form or a special question to the jury with an explicit finding would probably be a preferable way....”
[¶ 13] At the close of the State's evidence, Mr. Anderson moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 29. He argued that the evidence established a “definite location” of the offense in Carbon County. The district court took the motion under advisement.
[¶ 14] At closing, the prosecutor explained the venue provision as follows:
So in that type of situation, where it is not known, then it can be charged and prosecuted in either the county where it's discovered, which is what happened here, it's reported in Rock Springs, police arrive, they investigate it, in Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. [Victim] doesn't even disclose until she's actually off the bus, or on the bus, when it's stopped in Rock Springs, Wyoming. That's when it's discovered, that's when it's investigated, and that's why it can be prosecuted here and why you can find him guilty in Sweetwater County.
[¶ 15] The jury returned a guilty verdict. Mr. Anderson renewed the motion for judgment of acquittal he had filed at the close...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sam v. State
...right against double jeopardy. U.S. Const. amend. 5, Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 11. We review constitutional claims de novo. Anderson v. State , 2014 WY 74, ¶ 17, 327 P.3d 89, 94 (Wyo. 2014). [¶84] The double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Wyoming constitutions "provide protection aga......
-
Hill v. State
...for plain error. Collins v. State, 2015 WY 92, ¶¶ 9–10, 354 P.3d 55, 57 (Wyo.2015) ; Fennell, 2015 WY 67, ¶ 23, 350 P.3d at 719 ; Anderson v. State, 2014 WY 74, ¶ 40, 327 P.3d 89, 99 (Wyo.2014). “Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there w......
-
Webb v. State
...(2) the alleged error violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the alleged error caused Mr. Webb material prejudice. Anderson v. State , 2014 WY 74, ¶ 40, 327 P.3d 89, 99 (Wyo. 2014). This Court is hesitant to find plain error in a closing argument because it is "reluctant to p......
-
Tarpey v. State
...errors are presumed prejudicial, unless this Court is convinced the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Anderson v. State , 2014 WY 74, ¶ 17, 327 P.3d 89, 94–95 (Wyo. 2014) (citing West v. State , 2013 WY 128, ¶ 12, 311 P.3d 157, 160 (Wyo. 2013) ). Mr. Tarpey asserts "[t]he court......