Armajo v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | S-20-0088 |
| Citation | 478 P.3d 184 |
| Parties | Charles Alfred ARMAJO, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; H. Michael Bennett, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; Corthell and King, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Bennett.
Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Eames.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] After a jury trial, Charles Alfred Armajo was convicted of second degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-315(a)(iv). On appeal, he challenges the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the sufficiency of the evidence. He also argues the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct in rebuttal argument. We affirm.
[¶2] We restate the issues:
[¶3] In September 2017, when ZL was 14 years old, she and her mother traveled from China to Minnesota to visit prospective schools for ZL. ZL's mother met Mr. Armajo on that trip and they began a romantic relationship. In January 2018, ZL and her mother moved to Minnesota. Over the following months, ZL's mother married Mr. Armajo and they moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming after he found a job and she bought a home there. In June, ZL moved to Cheyenne to live with them and attend a local high school.
[¶4] On October 16, 2018, while alone in the home, Mr. Armajo engaged in a Native American "ceremony" with ZL to commemorate her first hunting trip three days prior. At school the next day, ZL told the school counselor that Mr. Armajo inappropriately touched her during the ceremony. The counselor reported the allegation to law enforcement.
[¶5] Later that month, following an investigation, the State charged Mr. Armajo with one count of second degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-315(a)(iv). The information alleged that on October 16, 2018, Mr. Armajo "did, being thirty-four (34) years of age, engage in sexual contact with [ZL] (YOB 2003) who is fifteen (15) years of age, and [Mr. Armajo] is the step-father to [ZL][.]"
[¶6] The case proceeded to trial the following September, where the State's case hinged primarily on ZL's testimony.1 ZL and her mother testified through an interpreter because English is their second language. In opening statements, the prosecutor informed the jury that the theme of the case was simple: "[s]exual assault is a universal language." ZL would testify about what her stepfather did to her. Despite language and cultural differences, ZL knew that what he did to her during the "ceremony" was wrong, so she reported it to her mother, her school counselor, and law enforcement. Defense counsel countered that Mr. Armajo, who is Native American and devout in his religious practices and spirituality, performed a ceremony that ZL misunderstood due to language and cultural barriers.
[¶7] ZL testified on direct examination about several events that occurred from June to October 2018. In June, Mr. Armajo pulled her aside in their home to show her some tools he used to perform Native American rituals. When ZL asked Mr. Armajo why he did not teach his brother about the tools, he responded that "his brother [did] not have the gift" but she did. Mr. Armajo told her to lay down on the couch and she obliged. Then he lifted her shirt so he could "show [her] a few pressure points o[n] [her] body[.]" When he "tried to take off [her] pants," ZL got up and told him he could not "do that." The next day, ZL told her mother what had happened. Her mother told Mr. Armajo not to touch ZL or perform any rituals with ZL.
[¶8] On October 13, when ZL was 15 years old, Mr. Armajo took ZL and her mother hunting near Riverton, Wyoming. Mr. Armajo helped ZL shoot her first deer. ZL's mother stayed in the car while Mr. Armajo and ZL collected the deer. On their way to collect the deer, Mr. Armajo told ZL that he wanted to tell her something but she "could not tell [her] mother." If she did, then her mother would divorce him, and ZL and her mother "would not be able to get [their] Green Card[s]." Mr. Armajo proceeded to tell ZL about a dream he had in which, after graduating from high school, ZL gave birth to his child at the hospital. ZL "rapidly took care of the deer and ran back to the car." She did not tell her mother about the dream.
[¶9] Three days after the hunting trip, Mr. Armajo picked ZL up from school and brought her back home after running some errands. ZL's mother was not home. "Typically [Mr. Armajo] never allowed [ZL's] mother to go, but that day he allowed [ZL's mother] to go visit her Chinese friend." Mr. Armajo told ZL that they needed to "prepare" the deer. But, because it had been her first hunting trip, he wanted to perform a ritual with her. ZL was uncomfortable participating in any ritual but agreed because she thought he had received permission from her mother. They went into the living room and Mr. Armajo told ZL to lie on the couch or the floor so he could breathe smoke into her mouth. ZL chose to lie on the floor. Mr. Armajo blew smoke into ZL's mouth, but she told him to stop, which he did.
[¶10] Next, Mr. Armajo kneeled over ZL, who was clothed and laying on her back, and pulled her closer to him. ZL "felt that [her] butt was very close to him." Mr. Armajo started lifting ZL's legs into the air so that ZL's bottom was "[h]alf ... on the floor," and the other "half [was] kind of up[.]" Mr. Armajo then lifted ZL's shirt and gave her a massage. ZL made him stop because he was not supposed to touch her skin.
[¶11] Mr. Armajo had ZL turn on to her side. He lifted one of ZL's legs into the air, and straddled her leg that was still on the floor. He began massaging her legs, gradually moving up her thigh. At this point, ZL "noticed [Mr. Armajo's] reproductive organ was different." ZL felt it moving on her buttocks. ZL, who was now scared, told Mr. Armajo she was done and left the room.
[¶12] Later that night, after her mother returned home, ZL told Mr. Armajo, in front of her mother, "don't you ever play any ritual on me." His face turned red and he agreed. ZL told her mother that Mr. Armajo "had some skin contact" with her. This upset ZL's mother because she had previously warned him not to engage in any rituals with ZL. When ZL's mother tried to call the police, Mr. Armajo "took her phone away and put the phone in his pocket." He told her not to call the police because if she did they would all be in trouble. ZL's mother tried to take the phone back but ZL told her to stop. At school the next day, ZL told her teacher and then the school counselor what happened the night before. The school counselor reported the allegation to law enforcement. Officers came to the school that afternoon and had ZL provide a written statement.
[¶13] The State called ZL's mother to address what she recalled about October 16. She testified that Mr. Armajo drove her to her friend's shop around 9:30 a.m. that morning, where she remained until he picked her up around 6:00 p.m. On arriving home, ZL told her that Mr. Armajo had given her a massage. ZL's mother became very upset at Mr. Armajo but did not report the incident to the police because he took her phone away and put it in his pocket. She tried to get the phone back but ZL asked her to stop.
[¶14] The State's remaining evidence addressed ZL's disclosure and the investigation. The school counselor testified that ZL "seem[ed] very upset and worried" when he spoke to her. Two officers broadly discussed gathering information related to the allegation at the school, speaking to ZL's mother, and obtaining a search warrant for Mr. Armajo's phone.
[¶15] The defense did not call any witnesses, but did introduce several exhibits during ZL's cross-examination. It introduced a short video that Mr. Armajo took on his phone during the hunting trip. The video did not capture any dream discussion. The defense also introduced photographs of Mr. Armajo and ZL together on the hunting trip, the home's living room area, and ZL cutting deer meat in the kitchen after the ceremony.
[¶16] Mr. Armajo moved for judgment of acquittal under W.R.Cr.P. 29, arguing that his incidental touching of ZL during the ceremony did not satisfy the "sexual contact" element of second degree sexual abuse of a minor. The court denied his motion based on ZL's testimony "that her body came in contact with the clothing covering the immediate area of Mr. Armajo's erect penis."2
[¶17] In closing argument, the prosecutor walked the jury through the elements and supporting evidence. Defense counsel maintained that there was no evidence that sexual contact occurred. He also argued that what occurred was part of a ceremony that ZL misunderstood, challenged ZL's credibility, and questioned whether ZL had a motive to fabricate the allegation. The prosecutor's rebuttal drew three sustained objections in close succession:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Manlove
...30 of the first formal charge, Special Bar Counsel alleged Ms. Manlove violated the Rules by her actions in Armajo v. State , 2020 WY 153, 478 P.3d 184 (Wyo. 2020). In answering the formal charge, Ms. Manlove admitted the allegations related to Armajo , but alleged the claim was irrelevant ......
-
Jendresen v. State
...for reversal where the accumulated effect constitutes prejudice and the conduct of the trial is other than fair and impartial." Armajo v. State, 2020 WY 153, ¶ 42, 478 P.3d 184, 195 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Bogard v. State, 2019 WY 96, ¶ 69, 449 P.3d 315, 332 (Wyo. 2019)). "'Each cumulative err......
-
Jendresen v. State
...for reversal where the accumulated effect constitutes prejudice and the conduct of the trial is other than fair and impartial." Armajo v. State , 2020 WY 153, ¶ 42, 478 P.3d 184, 195 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Bogard v. State , 2019 WY 96, ¶ 69, 449 P.3d 315, 332 (Wyo. 2019) ). " ‘Each cumulative......
-
Borja v. State
...favorable to the appellant that conflicts with the State's evidence." Mackley , 2021 WY 33, ¶ 24, 481 P.3d at 645 (quoting Armajo v. State , 2020 WY 153, ¶ 21, 478 P.3d 184, 191 (Wyo. 2020) ). [¶22] Mr. Borja further contends that the State failed in its proof because it did not present dir......