Christopher James Yager v. State
2015 WY 139
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Christopher Yager, a Wyoming Department of Corrections probation and parole agent, began a consensual sexual relationship with M.C., a person under DOC supervision, while she was a probationer. Some encounters occurred at his office.
- M.C. reported the relationship; Yager was charged under Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-303(a)(vii) (second-degree sexual assault as originally alleged) and pleaded conditionally guilty to third-degree sexual assault (§ 6-2-304), reserving the right to appeal denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss.
- Yager moved to dismiss asserting § 6-2-303(a)(vii) does not apply to probation officers/probationers because the statute’s enumerated examples describe confined facilities.
- The district court denied the motion; Yager appealed the statutory-interpretation issue; the Supreme Court reviews statutory interpretation de novo.
- The court analyzed statutory text, definitions, and related Wyoming statutes placing probation/parole and field services within the Department of Corrections and concluded the statute is unambiguous and covers probation officers and probationers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probation officer is an “employee ... of a state ... correctional system” under Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-303(a)(vii) | Yager: "correctional system" should be limited by ejusdem generis/noscitur a sociis to listed detention/treatment facilities; probationers are not in "official detention" so statute shouldn't apply | State: statutory language is plain; "correctional system" and victims “under supervision” include probation/parole; legislature could have used "facility" if it meant to confine scope | Court: Affirmed — probation officers are employees of the state correctional system and the statute applies to probationers under supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- Spreeman v. State, 278 P.3d 1159 (Wyo. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; give words their plain meaning)
- Jones v. State, 256 P.3d 536 (Wyo. 2011) (statutory ambiguity defined and plain-meaning principles)
- RME Petroleum Co. v. Wyo. Dep’t of Revenue, 150 P.3d 673 (Wyo. 2007) (application of ejusdem generis to limit general words following specific examples)
- United States v. West, 671 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2012) ("including, but not limited to" can negate rigid application of ejusdem generis)
- Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar, 533 P.2d 1129 (Colo. 1975) ("include" is word of extension; ejusdem generis inapplicable where general term precedes examples)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (canons like noscitur a sociis aid only when statutory terms are ambiguous)