State v. Kraly
| Decision Date | 03 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 44892 |
| Citation | 164 Idaho 67,423 P.3d 1019 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shane A. KRALY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett LLP, for Appellant. Dennis Benjamin argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, for Respondent. Kale Gans argued.
Shane A. Kraly appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial where he was found guilty of various charges, including injury to child, in violation of Idaho Code section 18-1501(1). Kraly argues that the jury verdict as to the injury to child charge was not supported by sufficient evidence to conclude that he assumed care or custody of the minor child, M.M. We vacate the district court’s judgment of conviction and remand this case with instructions for the entry of a judgment of acquittal as to Count II—the injury to child charge. However, Kraly’s other convictions remain.
On April 27, 2016, M.M. met Kraly on social media through a mutual friend. M.M., who was seventeen at the time, told Kraly she was nineteen. Kraly, who was thirty, told M.M. that he was twenty-five. After they exchanged messages through social media, they shared phone numbers and started texting. After an extensive and explicit conversation, M.M. agreed that Kraly would come to her room, stay the night, and they would have sex.
Kraly drove to M.M.’s residence that evening. At the time, M.M. lived with her father, but her bedroom was in a separate building on the property and was not connected to the main house. When Kraly arrived, M.M. met him outside and showed him to her room.
Once inside her room, they made small talk, and Kraly asked her if she wanted to use methamphetamine. M.M. testified that this "freaked [her] out," and she said, "No, not really." She further testified that she had never done methamphetamine before, was terrified of needles, and had seen the impact drugs can have on a person’s life because her uncle was an addict. Although she did not want to do methamphetamine, Kraly persisted until M.M. "just finally said yes" because "no wasn’t good enough." Kraly then put a syringe without a needle into M.M.’s anus and injected methamphetamine into her rectum.
M.M. testified that after Kraly injected methamphetamine into her rectum her head hurt "really bad" and she suddenly "didn’t care" about her surroundings. Shortly after Kraly injected M.M. he showed her how to use methamphetamine. M.M. testified that Kraly had a little baggie with crystals in it, a knife, and a spoon. Once he finished crushing the crystals and mixed the drug with water, Kraly used a syringe with a needle and injected methamphetamine into his arm. After Kraly injected himself, M.M. testified that she felt "really tired and confused." Kraly told M.M. to "trust him and it won’t hurt," and, using the same needle he had just injected himself with, he injected methamphetamine into M.M.’s arm. In addition to repeatedly injecting himself, Kraly also injected M.M. with methamphetamine throughout the night. In between injections, Kraly and M.M. had sex until the following morning.
M.M. also testified that the following morning she was still high and "didn’t want to go to school." Kraly drove them to a store for coffee and cigarettes, and then drove them to the Kootenai River Inn Casino. After a minute or two, they left and drove to a secluded location. While there, and while still in the truck, Kraly injected himself with methamphetamine and then injected M.M. in her arm. Kraly drove them back to the casino where they sat in the truck.
M.M. was wearing an ankle monitor pursuant to the terms of a juvenile court release order. When M.M. did not show up at school, the school called her father, and her father called M.M.’s juvenile probation officer. Using the ankle monitor’s GPS coordinates, law enforcement tracked M.M. to the casino parking lot and discovered Kraly and M.M. sitting in his truck. Kraly was later arrested and charged with rape, injury to child, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
After trial, a jury found Kraly guilty on all counts. On January 19, 2017, the district court sentenced Kraly to concurrent fifteen year sentences on the rape and injury to child charges with five years fixed. Kraly was also sentenced to a concurrent five year fixed sentence on the methamphetamine charge and received credit for time served on the paraphernalia charge. Kraly timely appealed his conviction on the injury to child charge.
"This Court will not overturn a judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury verdict, where there is substantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Knutsen , 158 Idaho 199, 206, 345 P.3d 989, 996 (2015) (internal quotations and citation omitted). As such, this Court "view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and we do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence." Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). "Evidence is substantial if a reasonable trier of fact would accept it and rely upon it in determining whether a disputed point of fact has been proven." State v. Smith , 161 Idaho 782, 790, 391 P.3d 1252, 1260 (2017) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
This Court exercises free review over statutory interpretation because it is a question of law. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Raney , 163 Idaho 342, 345, 413 P.3d 742, 745 (2018).
The objective of statutory interpretation is to derive the intent of the legislative body that adopted the act. Statutory interpretation begins with the literal language of the statute. Provisions should not be read in isolation, but must be interpreted in the context of the entire document. The statute should be considered as a whole, and words should be given their plain, usual, and ordinary meanings. It should be noted that the Court must give effect to all the words and provisions of the statute so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant. When the statutory language is unambiguous, the clearly expressed intent of the legislative body must be given effect, and the Court need not consider rules of statutory construction.
Id . (quoting State v. Dunlap , 155 Idaho 345, 361–62, 313 P.3d 1, 17–18 ). "A statute is ambiguous where the language is capable of more than one reasonable construction." Id. "Only where the language is ambiguous will this Court look to rules of construction for guidance and consider the reasonableness of proposed interpretations." City of Idaho Falls v. H-K Contractors, Inc. , 163 Idaho 579, 582, 416 P.3d 951, 954 (2018).
We recognize that a statute is not ambiguous simply because the parties present differing interpretations to the court. Idaho Falls , 163 Idaho at 582, 416 P.3d at 954. (citing Stonebrook Const., LLC v. Chase Home Fin. , 152 Idaho 927, 931, 277 P.3d 374, 378 (2012) ). The terms "care or custody" are not ambiguous despite the parties’ differing definitions. The State advocates that "care or custody" extends beyond a formal parent-child relationship, focusing on whether the defendant controlled or supervised a minor. In particular, the State cites to cases in which a party had "control" of children while driving those children in a motor vehicle. See State v. Anspach , 627 N.W.2d 227 (Iowa 2001). Accordingly, the State equates "care or custody" to "control," arguing that the evidence established Kraly’s "control" over M.M., thus subjecting him to the strictures of section 18-1501.
Kraly, on the other hand, cites Idaho precedent in advocating that "care or custody" is to be defined by its "ordinary meaning ... and the context in which it is used." State v. Morales , 146 Idaho 264, 267, 192 P.3d 1088, 1091 (Ct. App. 2008). Kraly further advocates that "both ‘custody’ and ‘care,’ ... imply accepting responsibility for a child in some manner." Id . (citing State v. Jones , 188 Ariz. 388, 937 P.2d 310, 314 (1997) ).
For purposes of our analysis we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of custody and control as did the Court of Appeals in Morales :
"Care" is defined as "CHARGE, SUPERVISION, MANAGEMENT: responsibility for or attention to safety and well-being." WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 338 (1993). See also People v. Culuko , 78 Cal.App.4th 307, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 808 (2000) " " .
Id. at 267, 192 P.3d at 1091. Additionally, we rely upon this Court’s analysis in Beers v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , 155 Idaho 680, 316 P.3d 92 (2013), which sheds light on the question of "care or custody" by requiring that to find a party responsible for the care or custody of a minor there must exist "an affirmative duty of care" between the adult and the minor. This affirmative duty is shown by: 1) a special relationship between the defendant and the child; or 2) an assumed duty towards the child. Id . at 686, 316 P.3d at 98. Under this standard Kraly did not have "care or custody" of M.M. during the hours he spent with her and his conviction of injury to child must be vacated.
The jury found Kraly guilty of injury to child as defined in Idaho Code section 18-1501(1), which states:
(1) Any person who, under circumstances or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ross
...district court found that Ross had a "special relationship" with his children based on this Court's decision in State v. Kraly , 164 Idaho 67, 423 P.3d 1019 (2018), and concluded that the elements necessary to find a violation of Idaho Code section 18-1501 had been met: "I can't imagine any......
-
Marquez v. Pierce Painting, Inc.
...164 Idaho 59423 P.3d 1011Elfego MARQUEZ, Claimant-Respondent,v.PIERCE PAINTING, INC., Employer, and State Insurance Fund, Surety, Defendants-Appellants.Docket No. 45415Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2018 Term.Filed: August 3, 2018Cantrill Skinner ... ...
-
Warren v. Boise Police Dep't
...a claim in an amended complaint. Idaho courts have recognized that special relationships can give rise to duties of care. State v. Kraly, 164 Idaho 67, 71 (2018). Warren's Complaint vaguely asserts that “trusted officials . . . failed to do their duties.” Compl. at 4, Dkt. 2. Doubtful as it......