State v. Conroy

• Decision Date: 30 January 2020
• Docket Number: Docket: Aro-19-9
• Citation: 225 A.3d 1011
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Colby D. CONROY
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

225 A.3d 1011

STATE of Maine

v.Colby D. CONROY

Docket: Aro-19-9

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: September 25, 2019

Decided: January 30, 2020

Matthew A. Hunter, Esq. (orally), Caribou, for appellant Colby D. Conroy

Todd R. Collins, District Attorney (orally), and John M. Pluto, Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District No. 8, Caribou, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.^*

Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

Concurrence/Dissent: ALEXANDER and JABAR, JJ.

GORMAN, J.

[¶1] Colby D. Conroy appeals from a judgment of conviction of gross sexual assault (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(2)(F) (2018), unlawful sexual contact (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(K) (2018), sexual abuse of a minor (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 254(1)(A) (2018), and unlawful sexual touching (Class E), 17-A M.R.S. § 260(1)(J) (2018), entered in the trial court (Aroostook County, Stewart, J. ) after a jury-waived trial. Conroy argues that the trial court erred when it found that the State had disproved his statutory defense to the charge of sexual abuse of a minor, and that his convictions on the remaining three charges were based on the court's misinterpretations of the relevant statutory language. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] The following facts are drawn from the parties' stipulations, see State v. Haskell , 2008 ME 82, ¶ 2, 955 A.2d 737, and the findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence admitted at trial, see State v. Proia , 2017 ME 169, ¶ 2, 168 A.3d 798. In the spring of 2014, Conroy was approved as a substitute teacher for Regional School Unit 39 (RSU 39). On May 22, 2017, he served as the substitute teacher for a culinary arts class at Caribou High School. While serving as the substitute teacher on that day, Conroy was an employee of RSU 39, and he had instructional, supervisory, and disciplinary authority over the students in that class.

[¶3] Among the students in the culinary arts class that day was a fifteen-year-old sophomore (the student). During the class period, Conroy chatted with the student and one of her classmates about a television show. At some point, the student made a statement related to the use of condoms.¹

[¶4] After the class period ended but while school was still in session that day, Conroy sent the student a "friend request" via Facebook, and she accepted the request. The two communicated via social media during the rest of the day and that evening. The next day, May 23, they continued communicating and eventually met at a shopping area in Caribou. Conroy drove the student home. Later that evening, they exchanged text messages that were sexual in nature, and they also exchanged nude photographs. The next day, May 24, Conroy picked the student up at her home and then took her to a movie. After the movie, Conroy drove to a secluded area where he engaged the student in a sexual act, sexual contact, and sexual touching, as those terms are statutorily defined. See 17-A M.R.S. § 251(1)(C), (D), (G) (2018). Conroy was twenty-two years old at the time of these acts, and he and the student were not spouses.² He was a "rostered" substitute teacher with RSU 39, meaning that he could have served as a substitute teacher again without re-applying for the position.³

[¶5] In July of 2017, in a seven-count indictment, the State charged Conroy with two counts of gross sexual assault (Counts 1-2), one count of unlawful sexual touching (Count 3), three counts of unlawful sexual contact (Counts 4-6), and one count of sexual abuse of a minor (Count 7). After Conroy pleaded not guilty to all counts, the court held a jury-waived trial on August 29 and 30, 2018. At the beginning of the trial, the State dismissed Counts 1, 5, and 6 with prejudice, leaving the following four charges for trial: gross sexual assault (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(2)(F), unlawful sexual contact (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(K), sexual abuse of a minor (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 254(1)(A), and unlawful sexual touching (Class E), 17-A M.R.S. § 260(1)(J).⁴

[¶6] The parties stipulated to a set of historical facts, which narrowed the factual and legal issues to be decided by the court. The court then heard testimony from several witnesses, including the student, school administrators, and Conroy.

[¶7] At trial, Conroy testified to a number of things that caused him to believe that the student was sixteen years old on May 24, 2017. The trial court accepted that Conroy did hold such a belief, but concluded that the State had proved that Conroy's belief was a gross deviation from what a reasonable and prudent person would have believed in the same situation.

[¶8] The court found Conroy guilty of all four charges and later sentenced Conroy, on the charge of gross sexual assault, to forty-two months in prison, with all but eighteen months suspended, and two years of probation. Conroy was sentenced to six months in jail on the charge of unlawful sexual contact, three months in jail on the charge of unlawful sexual touching, and six months in jail on the charge of sexual abuse of a minor, all to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the gross sexual assault charge.

[¶9] Conroy timely appeals from the resulting judgment of conviction. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2018) ; M.R. App. P. 2B(b)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Sexual Abuse of a Minor

[¶10] As mentioned above, in reaching its determination that Conroy was guilty of the sexual abuse of a minor charge, the court specifically found that, if Conroy believed that the student was sixteen years old or older, that belief was unreasonable. Conroy argues that the trial court erred when it rejected his statutory defense by misallocating the burden of proof. We review the court's legal rulings de novo and its factual findings for clear error. State v. Diecidue , 2007 ME 137, ¶ 10, 931 A.2d 1077.

[¶11] Section 254(1)(A) provides that "[a] person is guilty of sexual abuse of a minor if ... [t]he person engages in a sexual act with another person, not the actor's spouse, who is either 14 or 15 years of age and the actor is at least 5 years older than the other person." It is a defense to this crime "that the actor reasonably believed the other person is at least 16 years of age." 17-A M.R.S. § 254(2) (2018). The State bears the burden of disproving this defense beyond a reasonable doubt if the "evidence admitted at the trial ... is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue." 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2018) ; see, e.g. , State v. Lacourse , 2017 ME 75, ¶ 11, 159 A.3d 847. We will not disturb a trial court's decision on a statutory defense as long as the court's findings are supported by competent evidence in the trial record, State v. Herzog , 2012 ME 73, ¶ 13, 44 A.3d 307, and "the court's judgment demonstrates that it has properly applied the law and has held the State and the defendant to the proper burdens of production and persuasion," id. ¶ 11.

[¶12] Here, as the court found, there was sufficient evidence to generate the defense that Conroy reasonably believed that the student was at least sixteen years old. The State therefore had the burden of disproving this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1).

[¶13] Conroy asserts that the trial court misallocated the burden of proof onto him to prove that he reasonably believed the student was at least sixteen years old. A review of the court's decision as a whole, however, demonstrates that the court was simply explaining how and why it had determined that the State had met its burden of disproving Conroy's defense. We are persuaded that the court correctly applied the burden of proof by finding that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if Conroy actually believed the student was at least sixteen years old, his belief was unreasonable. That finding was supported by competent evidence admitted at trial. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction of sexual abuse of a minor.

B. Unlawful Sexual Touching

[¶14] Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 260(1)(J),

[a] person is guilty of unlawful sexual touching if the actor intentionally subjects another person to any sexual touching and ... [t]he other person, not the actor's spouse, is in fact less than 18 years of age and is a student enrolled in a private or public elementary, secondary or special education school, facility or institution and the actor, who is at least 21 years of age, is a teacher, employee or other official in the school district, school union, educational unit, school, facility or institution in which the student is enrolled.

(Emphasis added.) Here, the only contested issue with regard to this charge was whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Conroy was a "teacher, employee or other school official." We review the court's factual findings for clear error, and "[f]actual findings are clearly erroneous only when there is no competent evidence in the record to support them." Diecidue , 2007 ME 137, ¶ 10, 931 A.2d 1077.

[¶15] Conroy has argued, before the trial court and here, that the statute plainly requires proof that the accused possessed the relevant status at the time that he committed the sexual touching. The State disagrees. We need not address that issue of statutory construction because the court did find that on May 24, 2017, when Conroy committed the sexual touching against the student, he was in fact an employee of RSU 39, albeit in a limited capacity, and that finding is supported by competent evidence in the record. The court's finding was properly based on the evidence that, at the time that he engaged in sexual touching of the student, Conroy remained a rostered substitute teacher for RSU 39. In explaining its ruling, the court relied on the facts specific to Conroy's relationship with RSU 39. It noted that Conroy's relationship with RSU 39 had begun in 2014 and had, at one time, included both a full-time position and a position...