Cercy v. State

• Decision Date: 27 December 2019
• Docket Number: S-19-0099
• Citation: 455 P.3d 678
• Parties: Tony Scott CERCY, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

455 P.3d 678

Tony Scott CERCY, Appellant (Defendant),

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

S-19-0099

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

December 27, 2019

Representing Appellant: H. Michael Bennett, Bennett Law Group, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming; Sean Connelly, Connelly Law, LLC, Denver, Colorado. Argument by Mr. Connelly.

Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Benjamin Fischer, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Fischer.

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

FOX, Justice.

[¶1] After his first jury trial ended in not-guilty verdicts on two counts and a mistrial on the third count, the jury in a second trial found Tony Cercy guilty of third-degree sexual assault. Mr. Cercy appeals his conviction claiming the second trial violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We reverse, though on instructional grounds rather than double jeopardy.

ISSUES

[¶2] Mr. Cercy raised several issues on appeal which we rephrase as follows:

1. Did the decision to retry Mr. Cercy for third-degree sexual assault violate the prohibition against double jeopardy?

2. Was the jury properly instructed on the law under which it could find Mr. Cercy guilty of third-degree sexual assault?

3. Does evidentiary or double jeopardy law govern evidence of cunnilingus on retrial?

FACTS

[¶3] June 24, 2017, started out like many summer days at Alcova reservoir. People breakfasted with friends and family, enjoyed the water, and drank copious amounts of alcohol. That night, two groups of people, one older and one younger, made their way to Tony Cercy’s lake house to continue the party. One member of the younger crowd, a young woman, passed out on the Cercys’ couch. When the younger group was ready to leave, they asked Tony’s wife, Caryl, if the young woman could remain on the sofa, and Mrs. Cercy agreed she could stay. The older crowd continued to party until around 1:00 in the morning. Soon after the older group left, a very intoxicated Mr. Cercy, Mrs. Cercy, and a friend staying with them, got ready for bed. Mr. Cercy went to bed in a guest room, while Mrs. Cercy and her four dogs slept in the master bedroom.

[¶4] The young woman on the sofa testified she woke up around 3:15 in the morning to find Mr. Cercy, half-naked, performing oral sex on her. She stated that when she woke up and touched his head, Mr. Cercy said, "I’ve been trying to wake you up with my dick and my tongue." She pushed him away and immediately started contacting people she knew at the lake for help, but got no response. Mr. Cercy gave her a ride to a friend’s lake house. As she got out of the vehicle, he said, "If you tell anyone else about this ... or what you woke up to, I’ll make sure that you’re killed, if not the both of us."

[¶5] Over the next three days, the young woman reported parts of the assault to multiple friends. Rumors flew around Casper, eventually making their way to the young woman’s father. After the young woman and her father talked, they decided to report the assault to the police.

[¶6] The State charged Mr. Cercy with: (1) first-degree sexual assault, requiring sexual intrusion, based on the theory that the victim was helpless and could not have consented; (2) second-degree sexual assault, requiring sexual intrusion, on the theory that Mr. Cercy caused submission of the victim by any means that would prevent resistance by a victim of ordinary resolution; and (3) third-degree sexual assault, requiring sexual contact, based on alternative theories of sexual contact under the circumstances of both first- and second-degree sexual assault. Denying any wrongdoing, Mr. Cercy went to trial in February 2018.

[¶7] At trial, the State presented evidence indicating that a half-naked Mr. Cercy undressed the unconscious young woman, performed oral sex on her, and threatened her with her life. The young woman testified that she made dozens of attempts to contact people in the early morning hours of June 25, 2017. The State also called witnesses to discuss the young woman’s demeanor after the alleged assault and the information she gave about what had happened; as well as expert witnesses to explain the lack of DNA evidence, the activation of Mr. Cercy’s phone camera during the hour in question, and the myths surrounding sexual assault victims. After twelve hours of deliberation, the jury sent word that it had reached a decision on two counts and was hung on the third. Mr. Cercy objected to hearing any verdict and moved for a mistrial. Instead, the district court decided to hear the two unanimous verdicts. The jury found Mr. Cercy not guilty of first- and second-degree sexual assault and was unable to reach a decision on third-degree sexual assault. The district court declared a mistrial on the hung count.

[¶8] Shortly thereafter, the State decided to retry Mr. Cercy for third-degree sexual assault. Mr. Cercy argued the retrial violated double jeopardy. The district court ruled that the State could retry Mr. Cercy and, after a change of venue to Thermopolis, the second trial began in November 2018. The evidence, witnesses, and story were almost identical to those presented during the first trial.

[¶9] During the second trial, Mr. Cercy asked the district court to prohibit the State from presenting evidence of cunnilingus; to give a limiting instruction whenever the State introduced evidence of cunnilingus; to give several jury instructions aimed at ensuring the jury did not convict based on acquitted conduct; and to use a particularized verdict form that required the jury to explain the factual basis for conviction. The district court denied all requests. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the district court sentenced Mr. Cercy to 6 to 8 years in prison. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶10] Mr. Cercy urges us to decide this case on double jeopardy grounds. We first address the threshold issue of whether the existence of a second trial violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.

I. Mr. Cercy’s second trial for third-degree sexual assault did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy

A. Double Jeopardy

[¶11] The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits any person from being "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V ; Currier v. Virginia , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2144, 2149, 201 L.Ed.2d 650 (2018). In Ashe v. Swenson , 397 U.S. 436, 445, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1195, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the rule of collateral estoppel "is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy." Mr. Cercy argues this doctrine precluded a second trial in his case.¹

[¶12] In Ashe , four masked men robbed six men playing poker. Id. at 438, 90 S.Ct. at 1191. The State charged Mr. Ashe with robbing one of them. Id. At trial, Mr. Ashe argued that he was not one of the masked robbers, and the jury returned a not-guilty verdict. Id. at 439, 90 S.Ct. at 1192. The State then charged him with robbing a different poker player. Id . At the second trial, Mr. Ashe again asserted that he was not one of the robbers. Id. at 440, 90 S.Ct. at 1192. The second jury convicted Mr. Ashe. Id. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the second trial violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. Id. at 445-47, 90 S.Ct. at 1195-96. The Court reached that conclusion by considering whether, after "taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter [of the prior proceeding], ... a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration." Id. at 444, 90 S.Ct. at 1194. The Court found:

The single rationally conceivable issue in dispute before the jury was whether the petitioner had been one of the robbers. And the jury by its verdict found that he had not. The federal rule of law, therefore, would make a second prosecution for the robbery of [the second poker player] wholly impermissible.

Id. at 445, 90 S.Ct. at 1195.

[¶13] Mr. Cercy argues Ashe governs his case because his defense at both trials was that he was asleep in another room the entire time and had no contact with the young woman. Thus, under his analysis, retrial for third-degree sexual assault violated double jeopardy because no rational jury could find he was not present for first- or second-degree sexual assault but was for third-degree sexual assault. On its face, this argument has some appeal. However, "a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which [Mr. Cercy] seeks to foreclose from consideration." Subsequent cases applying Ashe help to clarify the distinction.

[¶14] In Yeager v. United States , 557 U.S. 110, 129 S.Ct. 2360, 174 L.Ed.2d 78 (2009), the Supreme Court considered the Ashe doctrine’s application to hung counts. There, Mr. Yeager was tried for multiple counts of securities fraud and insider trading. Id. at 114, 129 S.Ct. at 2363. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on the fraud charges and hung on the insider trading charges. Id. at 115, 129 S.Ct. at 2364. The government obtained a new indictment, and Mr. Yeager moved to dismiss. Id. Mr. Yeager brought an interlocutory appeal arguing double jeopardy barred his retrial. Id. at 115-16, 129 S.Ct. at 2364-65. On petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court held "the consideration of hung counts has no place in the issue-preclusion analysis. ... To identify what a jury necessarily determined at trial, courts should scrutinize a jury’s decisions, not its failures to decide." Id . at 122, 129 S.Ct. at 2368. Thus, under Yeager , we give no weight to the fact that a jury failed to reach a verdict.

[¶15] The Supreme Court then looked to the charges and concluded that one element, the possession of insider information, was a critical issue of ultimate fact for...