Shields v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | S-19-0269,S-19-0007 |
| Citation | 468 P.3d 1097 |
| Parties | Amber R. SHIELDS, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, Wyoming Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; Robin S. Cooper, 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; Kelly D. Mullen, Assistant Attorney General.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] A jury convicted Amber R. Shields of one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree and one count of child endangerment. The district court sentenced her consecutively to 15 to 20 years for sexual abuse of a minor and one year for child endangerment. She appeals from her convictions and sentences as well as from the denial of her W.R.A.P. 21 motion for a new trial. We affirm.
[¶2] We reorder and state the issues as:
[¶3] On March 2, 2016, the Gillette, Wyoming Police Department received a complaint there was a sex offender (Charles Mathisen) in the laundry room at an apartment complex. CL lived in that complex with her mother, Ms. Shields, father, JL, younger sister, ML, and other younger siblings. Mr. Mathisen was a friend of CL's family and a maintenance worker at the complex.
[¶4] When Officer Zachary Parker arrived, he observed JL leaving the laundry room and spoke to Mr. Mathisen inside the laundry room. Officer Parker observed a maintenance room near the laundry room that was stacked with broken dressers, dryers, and bedding. Behind those items, he found a bucket of urine, a small dollhouse with one figurine in it, and a mattress folded in a cubby hole. This discovery triggered a criminal investigation of Mr. Mathisen.
[¶5] Detective Jeremiah Wagner was assigned the case on May 17 and spoke to Ms. Shields that afternoon. Ms. Shields was not a suspect at the time; Detective Wagner wanted to "feel things out as far as danger to the children." He filled Ms. Shields in on the investigation and his concerns for her children. Ms. Shields agreed to bring CL in for a forensic interview about Mr. Mathisen. The Department of Family Services (DFS) became involved a couple days later, on receiving a report from law enforcement that Mr. Mathisen might be sexually abusing CL.
[¶6] Detective Wagner scheduled CL's forensic interview for May 31, 2016 at the Children's Advocacy Center in Rapid City, South Dakota. Ms. Shields brought CL to the interview but CL would not interact with the lead forensic interviewer, Brandi Tonkel. When Detective Wagner and DFS employee Dena Knox spoke with Ms. Shields privately to request that she encourage CL to talk to the interviewer, Ms. Shields reacted negatively and yelled at them. Ms. Shields said Mr. Mathisen "was a good man, that he was a churchgoing man, and that she didn't care, or she didn't want to know what he had done to her daughter." She indicated that the last time CL saw Mr. Mathisen was three days earlier—on May 28, 2016. The interview was canceled and Ms. Shields' children were taken into protective custody that afternoon. CL was placed in non-relative foster care with Charlynn Patterson, with whom she lived for the next year and a half.
[¶7] Over the next eight months, Ms. Tonkel interviewed CL four times: on June 21, July 20, and November 4, 2016, as well as January 30, 2017. Based on CL's disclosure about Mr. Mathisen during the July 20 interview, Detective Wagner obtained warrants to arrest Mr. Mathisen and search his home. When police searched Mr. Mathisen's home, they found a bag of hard drives and a modified vibrator in one of his bedrooms. The hard drives contained thousands of pornography images and videos. Dozens of videos depicted CL, and at least five depicted Mr. Mathisen engaged in sexual activity with CL.
[¶8] In May 2017, after approximately one year living in foster care with Ms. Patterson, CL told Ms. Patterson that Ms. Shields had sexually abused her. Ms. Patterson took notes about her conversation with CL and passed that information along to DFS. Ms. Tonkel interviewed CL about the disclosure in a fifth and final forensic interview on July 10, 2017.1 Criminal charges against Ms. Shields followed.
[¶9] The State charged Ms. Shields with one felony and one misdemeanor in September. Count 1 charged second degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-315(a)(iii). The information alleged that between December 1, 2015 and May 31, 2016, Ms. Shields "engaged in sexual contact with a victim who was less than" 18 years old when Ms. Shields was 18 years or older and the victim's legal guardian. The supporting affidavit summarized CL's disclosure that Ms. Shields placed a small pink vibrator in CL's underwear, on CL's "private," and told her to leave it inside her underwear for a "little bit."
[¶10] Count 2 charged Ms. Shields with misdemeanor child endangerment under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-403(a)(ii). The information alleged that between December 1, 2015 and May 31, 2016, Ms. Shields "knowingly or with criminal negligence caused, permitted or contributed to the endangering of the child's health by violating a duty of care or protection[.]" More specifically, it alleged that Ms. Shields learned Mr. Mathisen had used CL in the production of child pornography, did not report it, and did not discontinue contact between Mr. Mathisen and CL. The supporting affidavit summarized CL's disclosure that Ms. Shields watched three videos Mr. Mathisen took of him having sexual intercourse with CL and that Ms. Shields said she "liked the second and third videos better than the first."
[¶11] The State added four misdemeanor child endangerment counts to the information in November—three pertaining to CL and one pertaining to her younger sister ML.
[¶12] Two attorneys represented Ms. Shields in the trial proceedings.2 The court scheduled trial for Monday, July 9, 2018. Several matters central to this appeal occurred on Friday, July 6. The court held a competency hearing that morning and found CL competent to testify. Late that afternoon, the court heard and denied Ms. Shields' motion to continue trial. At the end of the afternoon hearing, the court informed the parties it had granted the State's recently filed motion to dismiss Counts 3–6.3
[¶13] Trial proceeded on Counts 1 and 2.4 The State's case focused on testimony from CL, Detective Wagner, and Ms. Tonkel. In addition, several individuals from the Gillette Police Department testified about the investigation of Mr. Mathisen's conduct and the items seized from his home. DFS employees Ms. Knox and Crystal Canfield testified about their involvement in the case. Ms. Patterson testified about CL's placement with her and the circumstances in which CL disclosed Mr. Mathisen's and Ms. Shields' abuse.
[¶14] CL's direct examination was straightforward. After setting a timeline, 10-year-old CL described her living situation before and at the time of the charged offenses. She then described her mother, Ms. Shields, placing a pink vibrating vibrator in her underwear, against the outside part of her vagina. CL stated she had never seen a vibrator before. CL also testified that "Chuck," meaning Mr. Mathisen, touched her vagina and made videos with her. CL said she was standing in the hallway of the family's apartment when she saw Chuck show the videos to her mother.
[¶15] On cross-examination, CL admitted she had visited with several people, some many times, about the vibrator and the videos. CL indicated she enjoyed going to Rapid City because after the interviews she got to shop for toys and eat out. When asked about her mother watching Chuck's videos, CL admitted she was not close enough to see what was on the screen. She also testified she had made a mistake earlier when she said she had never seen a vibrator before. Chuck used vibrators on her, but never a pink one. On redirect, CL indicated none of the individuals she had spoken to about the vibrator or the videos told her what to say. Although she could not see the screen of Chuck's camera, she remembered her mother asking Chuck, "[I]s that my daughter?"
[¶16] On her direct examination, Ms. Tonkel discussed her qualifications and explained the general protocols for a forensic interview. She addressed her research and experience regarding why children lie, how time could moderate poorly asked questions, and how disclosure was generally a process rather than a one-time event. She testified that she used an extended interview process with CL because of CL's recent contact with Mr. Mathisen and also because the abuse had initially come to light through means other than CL's voluntary disclosure.
[¶17] Ms. Tonkel then testified about her July 10,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yazzie v. State
...assistance of counsel. See, e.g. , Sides , 2021 WY 42, ¶ 34, 483 P.3d at 137 ; Shields v. State , 2020 WY 101, ¶ 44, 468 P.3d 1097, 1109-10 (Wyo. 2020) ; Winters v. State , 2019 WY 76, ¶¶ 11-12, 446 P.3d 191, 198-99 (Wyo. 2019) ; Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16, ¶ 37, 367 P.3d 1108, 1124 (Wyo.......
-
Yazzie v. State
...ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Sides, 2021 WY 42, ¶ 34, 483 P.3d at 137; Shields v. State, 2020 WY 101, ¶ 44, 468 P.3d 1097, 1109-10 (Wyo. 2020); Winters v. State, 2019 WY 76, ¶¶ 11-12, 446 P.3d 191, 198-99 (Wyo. 2019); Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 37, 367 P.3d 1108, 1124 (......
-
Tarpey v. State
..."The most important factor in our prejudice analysis is the strength of the State's case." Shields v. State , 2020 WY 101, ¶ 40, 468 P.3d 1097, 1108 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Bogard v. State , 2019 WY 96, ¶ 72, 449 P.3d 315, 332 (Wyo. 2019) ).A. Stipulating to the Admission of BS's Recorded State......
-
Tarpey v. State
..."The most important factor in our prejudice analysis is the strength of the State's case." Shields v. State, 2020 WY 101, ¶ 40, 468 P.3d 1097, 1108 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Bogard State, 2019 WY 96, ¶ 72, 449 P.3d 315, 332 (Wyo. 2019)). A. Stipulating to the Admission of BS's Recorded Statement ......