Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 26 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-0248 |
| Citation | 2022 WY 93 |
| Parties | JASON HENRY ROBERTS, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County The Honorable Stuart S. Healy III, Judge
Representing Appellant: Office of Public Defender: Diane M Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.
Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Catherine M. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] The State charged Jason Roberts by Felony Information with three identical counts of sexual assault in the third degree for acts committed on or between April 1, 1999, and June 30, 1999. Prior to trial, the district court asked the State to differentiate the charges. The State did not amend the Felony Information until after its presentation of evidence when Mr. Roberts moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground the Felony Information did not differentiate between the counts. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the district court allowed the State to amend each count with factual specificity to conform with the affidavit of probable cause and the testimony at trial. A jury convicted Mr. Roberts on one count and acquitted him on two counts. On appeal, Mr. Roberts challenges the timeliness of the State's amendment. We affirm.
[¶2] Did the district court err when it allowed the State to amend the Felony Information before submitting the case to the jury?
[¶3] In May 2019, B.M. contacted the Gillette Police Department to report she was sexually assaulted approximately 22 years earlier in Gillette, Wyoming. Detective Jeremy Dowdy, with the Gillette Police Department, arranged for a law enforcement agency in Idaho, where B.M. lived, to conduct a sit-down interview with B.M. He assigned Detective Christine Winterholler, with the Gillette Police Department, as the lead investigator.
[¶4] Detective Heath Downs, with the Caribou County Sheriff's Office in Soda Springs, Idaho, took a video recorded statement from B.M. in which she discussed being sexually assaulted by Jason Roberts when she was a child. In her initial statement, B.M. stated she believed she was 11 years old at the time the alleged sexual assaults took place. However, she later clarified the sexual assaults occurred between her sixth and seventh-grade years. B.M. further remembered when the sexual assaults took place based on Mr Roberts's children's ages. B.M. stated the sexual abuse stopped once she entered the seventh grade. While B.M. incorrectly believed she was 11 years old at the time, she was able to correlate the assaults with certain events that occurred during that time frame, including her parents' divorce.
[¶5] During her investigation, Detective Winterholler interviewed B.M.'s Mother and learned she kept a diary during this time frame. Detective Winterholler reviewed the diary and found entries that supported B.M.'s statements of the events that she correlated to when the assaults occurred. While B.M. stated she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Roberts more than five times but less than ten times, Detective Winterholler only verified three different occasions that Mr. Roberts sexually assaulted B.M. between April 1, 1999, and June 30, 1999. Detective Winterholler detailed the results of her investigation in an affidavit of probable cause. Specifically, she included three different occasions where Mr. Roberts allegedly sexually assaulted B.M. between April 1, 1999, and June 30, 1999, when he was 26 years old and B.M. was 12 years old.
[¶6] The affidavit stated all three sexual assaults occurred in the hallway of Mr. Roberts's residence during the same three-month timeframe. It described the events and the correlating diary entries for each of the assaults. The affidavit outlined the factual allegations that occurred during the first sexual assault, including that B.M. experienced vaginal bleeding the next morning. It also summarized B.M.'s statement surrounding the second assault, which included her statement she went to Rapid City, South Dakota with Mr. Roberts and his wife and that Mr. Roberts sexually assaulted her the night before in the hallway of his residence. The correlating diary entry dated May 30, 1999, was discussed in the affidavit and stated B.M. went to Rapid City with Mr. Roberts. The third sexual assault was alleged to have occurred sometime around B.M.'s thirteenth birthday. The affidavit discussed B.M.'s statement that she remembered being sexually assaulted by Mr. Roberts around her birthday, and specifically, she remembered after the assault she went on a trip to Keyhole Lake with Mr. Roberts and his family. The affidavit indicated the diary entry correlating to this event was dated June 11, 1999, to June 12, 1999, and detailed B.M.'s birthday party, including that she stayed the night with Mr. Roberts and went to Keyhole Lake the next day.
[¶7] On July 7, 2020, the State charged Mr. Roberts with three identical counts of sexual assault in the third degree occurring on or between April 1, 1999, and June 30, 1999, in Campbell County, Wyoming, in violation of Wyoming Statute § 6-2-304(a)(i) (LexisNexis 1997). The affidavit of probable cause was attached to the Felony Information. The Felony Information and affidavit were both personally served on Mr. Roberts on July 10, 2020.
[¶8] Beginning on June 1, 2021, a three-day jury trial was held. At the start of the trial, the district court asked the State how it intended to differentiate between the three identical counts. The district court indicated it raised the issue of the Felony Information charging three identical counts the previous week[1] and stated it was again putting the State on notice about its concern that all three charges were identically worded. The district court stated it wanted to ensure the parties and the court understood the jury's verdict when it is returned.
[¶9] During the State's presentation of evidence, it questioned each of its witnesses on the three sexual assaults that were detailed in the affidavit of probable cause. Specifically, it questioned Detective Winterholler on B.M.'s statements surrounding each of the three assaults and each diary entry that supported and correlated to B.M.'s statements. Both Detective Winterholler and B.M. testified the three sexual assaults occurred when B.M. was 12 years old between her sixth and seventh-grade years from April 1999 to June 1999.
[¶10] Regarding the first sexual assault, Detective Winterholler testified it occurred in the hallway of Mr. Roberts's residence and that B.M. reported she experienced vaginal bleeding the following day. B.M.'s testimony paralleled Detective Winterholler's testimony and confirmed the statement about vaginal bleeding. Concerning the second and third sexual assaults, Detective Winterholler's and B.M.'s testimony mirrored the events and details set forth in the affidavit. Their testimony did diverge on which assault occurred after the first, however, both testified B.M. was sexually assaulted the night before she took a trip to Rapid City, South Dakota with Mr. Roberts and his wife, and again around her birthday before a camping trip to Keyhole. During cross-examination of Detective Winterholler and B.M., Mr. Roberts's counsel focused on B.M.'s statement that she was 11 years old and not 12 years old at the time the sexual assaults occurred and that all the sexual assaults were "essentially the same." Detective Winterholler clarified that based on B.M.'s statements She further clarified that B.M.'s memory was off by one year but her mother's diary entries from that time frame were consistent with [B.M.'s] statements of when the events occurred.
[¶11] After the State's presentation of evidence, Mr. Roberts moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the Felony Information did not differentiate between each count and "the jury [was] left to guess or speculate about which count [was] which action." The district court agreed with Mr. Roberts and found the Felony Information was not sufficient as drafted and noted it was "frustrated with the State because the Court ha[d] . . . reminded the State on several occasions over the course of this trial that the Information [was] a problem, and [it] still [did not] have an Amended Information . . . to review." However, the district court observed "that the defendant was put on notice of the three incidents in the affidavit attached to the Information" and that "the State did . . . attempt to differentiate through its questioning the three incidents and the date ranges that they occurred on." The district court reserved ruling on Mr. Roberts's motion until it received an amended information from the State.
[¶12] At the end of the second day of trial, before the case was submitted to the jury, the State moved to amend the Felony Information. The district court heard argument and granted the State's motion. The district court denied Mr Roberts's motion for judgment of acquittal. In its ruling, the district court noted the affidavit of probable cause attached to the original Felony Information was filed of record and outlined the events surrounding three alleged incidents of sexual assault. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial