Bernal-Molina v. State

• Decision Date: 04 August 2021
• Docket Number: S-20-0204
• Citation: 492 P.3d 904
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Parties: Miguel Rolando BERNAL-MOLINA, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

492 P.3d 904

Miguel Rolando BERNAL-MOLINA, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-20-0204

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

August 4, 2021

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; H. Michael Bennett, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS^* , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] A jury convicted Miguel Rolando Bernal-Molina of three counts of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor between the ages of 13 and 15 years. Mr. Bernal-Molina claims the district court improperly instructed the jury on his theory of defense that he reasonably believed the victim was at least 16 years old. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] The broad issue on appeal is: Did the district court abuse its discretion by improperly instructing the jury on Mr. Bernal-Molina's theory of defense? The sub-issues are:

a. Did the district court err by defining "reasonable belief" for the jury?

b. Did the district court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the details of Mr. Bernal-Molina's theory of defense?¹

FACTS

[¶3] On July 4, 2018, fifteen-year-old AS took her three younger siblings outside to watch fireworks in the trailer park where they lived in Gillette, Wyoming. Other children also gathered to watch the fireworks, including Mr. Bernal-Molina's twelve-year-old daughter and ten-year-old son. AS, Mr. Bernal-Molina's daughter, and a third girl used a ladder to climb onto the roof of Mr. Bernal-Molina's trailer for a better view of the fireworks. Mr. Bernal-Molina, who was then 34 years old, helped the girls as they used the ladder.

[¶4] Later, the children decided to play hide and seek. Mr. Bernal-Molina joined them and, as they were discussing the rules of the game, he twice grabbed AS's buttocks. She objected each time. The children separated to begin the game, and Mr. Bernal-Molina accompanied AS and four other children. While the group was walking, Mr. Bernal-Molina stuck his hand down the back of AS's pants and "shoved his hand in-between [her] butt cheeks," touching her anus. He also "forcefully" placed her hand on his penis inside his pants. When they were done playing hide and seek, the group walked to a basketball court, and Mr. Bernal-Molina again put his hand down AS's pants and touched her anus. She "got really upset" and went home. AS called 911 to report the incident.

[¶5] Gillette police officers interviewed Mr. Bernal-Molina at the police station, and the interview was recorded. At first, he denied touching AS inappropriately and said the only time he touched her was when he was helping her on and off the ladder to his roof. However, after the officers told him they were going to have AS's clothes tested for his DNA, he admitted he put his hand down her pants and took her hand and placed it in his pants on his penis.

[¶6] The State charged Mr. Bernal-Molina with three counts of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor for having sexual contact with a victim who was 13 through 15 years old. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-316(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2021). The case proceeded to a jury trial. Mr. Bernal-Molina defended the charges by claiming he reasonably believed AS was 16 or 17 years old. The jury found him guilty on all three counts, and the district court sentenced him to eight to ten years in prison. Mr. Bernal-Molina appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶7] Mr. Bernal-Molina claims the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on his theory of defense. He does not argue the district court wholly denied him the opportunity to present his theory of defense. Had that been the case, there would have been a due process issue for which "our standard of review would be de novo." Haire v. State, 2017 WY 48, ¶ 27, 393 P.3d 1304, 1311 (Wyo. 2017). See also, Tingey v. State , 2017 WY 5, ¶ 27, 387 P.3d 1170, 1178 (Wyo. 2017) ("The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo."). Instead, Mr. Bernal-Molina argues the district court erred in crafting the theory of defense instructions.

[¶8] Mr. Bernal-Molina objected to the instructions at trial; consequently, we review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. Haire, ¶ 28 (citing Gonzalez-Ochoa v. State , 2014 WY 14, ¶ 18, 317 P.3d 599, 604-05 (Wyo. 2014) ). We will not reverse if the instructions correctly stated the law and collectively covered the relevant issues. Id. Even if a district court's ruling on an instruction was erroneous, it must be prejudicial to warrant reversal. Hurley v. State , 2017 WY 95, ¶ 8, 401 P.3d 827, 830 (Wyo. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because the purpose of jury instructions is to provide guidance on the applicable law, prejudice results when the instructions confused or misled the jury. Id . See also , Schmuck v. State , 2017 WY 140, ¶ 45, 406 P.3d 286, 301 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Hurley ). Resolution of this case also requires us to interpret the relevant statute. Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo. Raczon v. State, 2021 WY 12, ¶ 8, 479 P.3d 749 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Herrick v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd. , 2019 WY 118, ¶ 17, 452 P.3d 1276, 1281 (Wyo. 2019) ) (other citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

[¶9] Mr. Bernal-Molina was charged with three counts of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor under § 6-2-316(a)(i) :

(a) Except under circumstance constituting sexual abuse of a minor in the first or second degree as defined by W.S. 6-2-314 and 6-2-315, an actor commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree if:

(i) Being seventeen (17) years of age or older, the actor engages in sexual contact with a victim who is thirteen (13) through fifteen (15) years of age, and the victim is at least four (4) years younger than the actor[.]

[¶10] Mr. Bernal-Molina's theory of defense was based on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-308(a) (LexisNexis 2021), which states in relevant part:

[I]f criminality of conduct in this article depends on a victim being under sixteen (16) years of age, it is an affirmative defense that the actor reasonably believed that the victim was sixteen (16) years of age or older.

[¶11] The district court instructed the jury on Mr. Bernal-Molina's theory of defense in two instructions – Instruction No. 18 and Instruction No. 22a. In Instruction No. 18, the district court charged the jury:

If criminality of conduct depends on a victim being under sixteen (16) years of age, it is an affirmative defense that the actor reasonably believed that the alleged victim was sixteen (16) years of age or older.

Because this is an affirmative defense, the Defendant has the burden of producing evidence to support the proposition that the Defendant reasonably believed the alleged victim was sixteen (16) years of age or older. Once the Defendant has produced evidence that he reasonably believed the alleged victim was 16 years of age or older, the State then has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not reasonably believe the alleged victim was sixteen (16) years of age or older.²

A reasonable belief is one that would be held by a person of ordinary intelligence under the same or similar circumstances.

(Emphasis and footnote added). The district court refused Mr. Bernal-Molina's request to remove the final sentence in Instruction No. 18.

[¶12] Instruction No. 22a was a general statement of Mr. Bernal-Molina's theory of defense:

Mr. Molina asserts he reasonably believed that [AS] was sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) and, as a result, he cannot be found guilty.

The district court rejected Mr. Bernal-Molina's request to add the following language to Instruction No. 22a:

The evidence before you is that Mr. Molina described AS as the 16 or 17 year old girl with [the other two girls who climbed on the roof]. The statement along with other direct or circumstantial evidence is what you have before you for your consideration. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Molina was not reasonable in his belief that AS was 16 or older.

1. Instruction No. 18 – Defining "Reasonable Belief" for the Jury

[¶13] Mr. Bernal-Molina claims the district court misinterpreted § 6-2-308(a) by instructing the jury on the definition of "reasonable belief" in Instruction No. 18. In interpreting a statute, " ‘we seek the legislature's intent as reflected in the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute,’ " giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence. Blevins v. State, 2017 WY 43, ¶ 27, 393 P.3d 1249, 1256 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting TW v. State (In the Interest of JB), 2017 WY 26, ¶ 12, 390 P.3d 357, 360 (Wyo. 2017) ) (other citations omitted). We do not interpret a statute in a manner that renders any part meaningless. Sena v. State, 2019 WY 111, ¶ 20, 451 P.3d 1143, 1148 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Adekale v. State , 2015 WY 30, ¶ 13, 344 P.3d 761, 765-66 (Wyo. 2015) ).

[¶14] Mr. Bernal-Molina claims the district court

disregarded the plain language of the statute, which specifically allows for the actor's reasonable belief and unduly emphasized the standard of a reasonable person. While the legislature required the actor's belief to be reasonable, it did specifically require that reasonable belief to be that of the actor, not the mythical reasonable person. This focus removes the subjective belief of Mr. Bernal-Molina, making his thoughts and beliefs irrelevant, and instead instructs the jury to place themselves in his place.

He points to a statement made by the district court during a preliminary discussion on the jury instructions as showing the court omitted his subjective belief from the instructions:

"[T]here's another point that we need to throw in here, which is going to need addressing by instruction, and that is the concept of

...